totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #180 on: February 24, 2020, 04:26:36 PM »
You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

Please stop lying.
I am rather irritated that you are stating I am lying.

Your own source states:

Quote
Sometimes a mechanical pressure gauge may need a gentle tapping in order to make sure that it is released from any friction or lost flexibility, especially if it has not been exercised in normal use. During the calibration, once the input pressure is stabilized, you can gently tap the gauge to see if the indication changes. Of course, you need to be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge
If a gauge is experiencing friction or lost flexibility, that = malfunctioning.

Quote
Yes, we have already concluded, as you now admit here...

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

And please stop trolling.
iCare has explained very clearly why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
I have explained as clearly as I can why the gas expelled from a rocket has momentum and thus rockets work by conservation of momentum.
Your own videos prove they do not.

I am not trolling.

Kindly point out precisely at each time stamp in each video you have posted, exactly when we see movement on the part of the rockets, and under what precise circumstances.

If you do this, you will then see that rockets do not work in a vacuum.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #181 on: February 24, 2020, 04:48:29 PM »
AATW, if you can't engage in this discussion without throwing insults around, just back away. Escalation won't help here, and will likely result in mod wrath.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #182 on: February 24, 2020, 05:01:30 PM »
You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

Please stop lying.

Quote
Sometimes a mechanical pressure gauge may need a gentle tapping in order to make sure that it is released from any friction or lost flexibility, especially if it has not been exercised in normal use. During the calibration, once the input pressure is stabilized, you can gently tap the gauge to see if the indication changes. Of course, you need to be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge

Quote
Yes, we have already concluded, as you now admit here...

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

And please stop trolling.
iCare has explained very clearly why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
I have explained as clearly as I can why the gas expelled from a rocket has momentum and thus rockets work by conservation of momentum.

Rockets do not work by conservation of momentum , ridiculous statement. iCare has not clarified anything. All either of you two have to do is show the details of the repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine can produce thrust in a vacuum .

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #183 on: February 24, 2020, 05:04:53 PM »
If a gauge is experiencing friction or lost flexibility, that = malfunctioning.

Everything experiences friction  ???
Why would you need to "be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge" if the thing is malfunctioning?

In the video as he expels the air you can clearly see the gauge going down, it is not malfunctioning.
He taps it in case any friction is affecting the reading but the gauge can clearly be seen working.
And, as I said above, when the gas from the rocket is vented the gauge does not significantly change reading.

As he explains in the video, he made the tube long because of criticism about his first attempt that the tube was short and the rocket only worked because the gas from the rocket created enough pressure that the rocket could then work. The lack of movement of the gauge after the rocket has fired clearly demonstrates that criticism to be invalid.

The video clearly shows the rocket working in a vacuum, I and iCare have explained how and he has explained much better than me why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.

Edit: Just calling conservation of momentum a "ridiculous statement" when it is a well understood and accepted law of physics is not an argument.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 05:06:31 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
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 #184 on: February 24, 2020, 07:30:31 PM »
(Once again deleted my post, as - despite quoting it - you did not reference any of the content.)
It is quite evident from everything you have posted here that you do not understand what you are looking at in the videos here...the rockets are not moving in a vacuum and do not move until a sufficient amount of gas is present in the vacuum.
I am not referring to the videos at all (nevertheless, my compliments to the people who went to all that effort), but to well established physical principles.
However, as you keep bringing those videos up: Rockets in an atmosphere also do not move right away, so that doesn't prove anything.

I do not doubt you care deeply about the subject, but until you realize that gas freely expands when released into a vacuum, as the videos here conclusively demonstrate, we will agree to disagree.
Actullay I don't really care that much about the subject itself.
I enjoy looking into the matter, measuring my understanding against your arguments (few as they are)  and I can happily say, that our discussion has improved my understanding - especially when it comes to some finer details.
I have provided a detailed explanation why I think free expansion does not and cannot apply.
You haven't pointed out any fault in my line of argument and simply doubting my understanding without substantiating it in any way is ... less than convincing.
Rather gives the impression, that it is you who's doesn't understand and has run out of arguments.
That's a pity, I think I might have some more up my sleeve, but it's your turn ...

Take it or leave it ... I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

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

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #185 on: February 24, 2020, 09:50:54 PM »
Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .
No argument with that; quote Wikipedia: "Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's third law. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system."
"Expelling mass in one direction" (in this case gas produced by burning rocket fuel) works just fine in a vacuum. Why wouldn't?

The physical process of igniting rocket fuel with its own oxidizer does not happen in a vacuum .
First of all, burning rocket fuel is a chemical reaction.
And why wouldn't fuel ignite in a vacuum?
For something to ignite one needs needs: heat, fuel and an oxidizing agent (fire triangle)
And all of it is there in a rocket ...

No work would be done even if it did ignite .
Gases expanding into a vacuum are not forced or pushed - that would require a resistance to expansion or gas flow .
Whyever would "pushing" only work with resistance?
Simply arguing from common sense: If someone "pushes" you back, you don't get pushed back because there is "resistance behind you", but because he's pushing you from the front.
Force is not generate at its "target" but at its origin - that origin is within the rocket, regardless of atmosphere or vacuum outside.

There is no force produced anywhere . Hence there is no reaction - no reactive thrust to accelerate .
I have thoroughly addressed this - in my previous post and above. Gas goes one way (not freely, but forced) - rocket goes the other way. Action - reaction.

Hot gas expanding freely into the vacuum would merely raise the temperature since it cannot convert to kinetic energy. There is the conservation of energy .
Did you read my explanation, why free expansion does not apply for this case, at all?
If you think it is wrong, please let me know why. If you cannot tell why it's wrong, it's probably right.
"It cannot convert" is an unproven claim and - at best - a misconception. The chemical reaction is "pumping serious kinetic energy" into the gas.
When the gas expands into the vacuum no conversion into kinetic energy is needed - it has happened long before.

Rockets do not work by conservation of momentum , ridiculous statement.
It sad you're now down to derogatives.
Conservation of momentum is not the wording I would have chosen, but in the end it's true.
See above ...
Initial momentum zero (or anything else, if the rocket is already moving).
Momentum of gas leaving the rocket one direction vs. equal momentum of rocket going the opposite direction. => conservation of momentum

iCare has not clarified anything.
Well. I really tried to - and personally I think I did a fairly good job (I'm biased of course ...  ;) ).
On the other hand I don't see any indication that you put any effort into reading and analyzing my clarification ...
Makes me wonder, if it's not a lack of clarification on my side, but a lack of understanding on your side?

All either of you two have to do is show the details of the repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine can produce thrust in a vacuum .
Actually ... no.
First of all, I really don't feel the need to prove anything to you - as mentioned before, I'm here to further my understanding of the subject.
If it does the same for you - great. If you'd rather not learn from this discussion - your choice, your loss.

Secondly, my line of argument is logical deduction.
I have have - at great length - described my reasoning why rocket engines do produce thrust in a vacuum and shown the errors in your reasoning why they wouldn't.
Now it is your turn ... prove me wrong in what I wrote or accept that you can't.
When you've done your part and we have the theory worked out, we may talk about experiments to confirm or rebut the theory.

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

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #186 on: February 25, 2020, 12:09:07 PM »
If a gauge is experiencing friction or lost flexibility, that = malfunctioning.

Everything experiences friction  ???
Okay.

Evidently when a gauge experiences friction, it can cause it to malfunction.

That is why you tap on it, as the guy does on three separate occasions at 7:50, 8:11, and 8:25 time stamps.

Plus, how do we know the guy is administering the proper amount of force in each of his taps?

How many newtons was he applying with each tap?

Did he deliver enough taps according to the scientists we all revere?

All these questions remain unanswered...
Why would you need to "be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge" if the thing is malfunctioning?
Probably to mitigate the possibility of further damage, but who really knows...has there been any peer reviewed documents published on the scientific art of gauge tapping?

Do you need to be a professional in order to tap on a gauge?

Is there an apprenticeship program?
In the video as he expels the air you can clearly see the gauge going down, it is not malfunctioning.
He taps it in case any friction is affecting the reading but the gauge can clearly be seen working.
And, as I said above, when the gas from the rocket is vented the gauge does not significantly change reading.
It changes, as you admit.

Adding adjectives like, "significantly," does not help your case.

Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.
As he explains in the video, he made the tube long because of criticism about his first attempt that the tube was short and the rocket only worked because the gas from the rocket created enough pressure that the rocket could then work. The lack of movement of the gauge after the rocket has fired clearly demonstrates that criticism to be invalid.
In the previous paragraph you stated the gauge, "does not significantly change reading," now in this paragraph it's,"lack of movement of the gauge."

Highly disingenuous.
The video clearly shows the rocket working in a vacuum, I and iCare have explained how and he has explained much better than me why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.

Edit: Just calling conservation of momentum a "ridiculous statement" when it is a well understood and accepted law of physics is not an argument.
The video does not even show a rocket.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 12:59:40 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #187 on: February 25, 2020, 12:15:17 PM »
(Once again deleted my post, as - despite quoting it - you did not reference any of the content.)
It is quite evident from everything you have posted here that you do not understand what you are looking at in the videos here...the rockets are not moving in a vacuum and do not move until a sufficient amount of gas is present in the vacuum.
I am not referring to the videos at all (nevertheless, my compliments to the people who went to all that effort), but to well established physical principles.
However, as you keep bringing those videos up: Rockets in an atmosphere also do not move right away, so that doesn't prove anything.
The videos prove that rockets won't move in a vacuum as there is no vacuum present once the rockets in these videos commence movement.

You should pay attention to these videos as they totally lay waste to your expressed written understanding of scientific principles in this subject.
I do not doubt you care deeply about the subject, but until you realize that gas freely expands when released into a vacuum, as the videos here conclusively demonstrate, we will agree to disagree.
Actullay I don't really care that much about the subject itself.
I enjoy looking into the matter, measuring my understanding against your arguments (few as they are)  and I can happily say, that our discussion has improved my understanding - especially when it comes to some finer details.
I have provided a detailed explanation why I think free expansion does not and cannot apply.
You haven't pointed out any fault in my line of argument and simply doubting my understanding without substantiating it in any way is ... less than convincing.
Rather gives the impression, that it is you who's doesn't understand and has run out of arguments.
That's a pity, I think I might have some more up my sleeve, but it's your turn ...

Take it or leave it ... I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

iC
My arguments don't need to be numerous.

The couple of them I have written here are sufficient and remain unchallenged.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 01:00:32 PM by totallackey »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #188 on: February 25, 2020, 12:55:39 PM »
Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .
No argument with that; quote Wikipedia: "Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's third law. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system."
"Expelling mass in one direction" (in this case gas produced by burning rocket fuel) works just fine in a vacuum. Why wouldn't?

The physical process of igniting rocket fuel with its own oxidizer does not happen in a vacuum .
First of all, burning rocket fuel is a chemical reaction.
And why wouldn't fuel ignite in a vacuum?
For something to ignite one needs needs: heat, fuel and an oxidizing agent (fire triangle)
And all of it is there in a rocket ...

No work would be done even if it did ignite .
Gases expanding into a vacuum are not forced or pushed - that would require a resistance to expansion or gas flow .
Whyever would "pushing" only work with resistance?
Simply arguing from common sense: If someone "pushes" you back, you don't get pushed back because there is "resistance behind you", but because he's pushing you from the front.
Force is not generate at its "target" but at its origin - that origin is within the rocket, regardless of atmosphere or vacuum outside.

There is no force produced anywhere . Hence there is no reaction - no reactive thrust to accelerate .
I have thoroughly addressed this - in my previous post and above. Gas goes one way (not freely, but forced) - rocket goes the other way. Action - reaction.

Hot gas expanding freely into the vacuum would merely raise the temperature since it cannot convert to kinetic energy. There is the conservation of energy .
Did you read my explanation, why free expansion does not apply for this case, at all?
If you think it is wrong, please let me know why. If you cannot tell why it's wrong, it's probably right.
"It cannot convert" is an unproven claim and - at best - a misconception. The chemical reaction is "pumping serious kinetic energy" into the gas.
When the gas expands into the vacuum no conversion into kinetic energy is needed - it has happened long before.

Rockets do not work by conservation of momentum , ridiculous statement.
It sad you're now down to derogatives.
Conservation of momentum is not the wording I would have chosen, but in the end it's true.
See above ...
Initial momentum zero (or anything else, if the rocket is already moving).
Momentum of gas leaving the rocket one direction vs. equal momentum of rocket going the opposite direction. => conservation of momentum

iCare has not clarified anything.
Well. I really tried to - and personally I think I did a fairly good job (I'm biased of course ...  ;) ).
On the other hand I don't see any indication that you put any effort into reading and analyzing my clarification ...
Makes me wonder, if it's not a lack of clarification on my side, but a lack of understanding on your side?

All either of you two have to do is show the details of the repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine can produce thrust in a vacuum .
Actually ... no.
First of all, I really don't feel the need to prove anything to you - as mentioned before, I'm here to further my understanding of the subject.
If it does the same for you - great. If you'd rather not learn from this discussion - your choice, your loss.

Secondly, my line of argument is logical deduction.
I have have - at great length - described my reasoning why rocket engines do produce thrust in a vacuum and shown the errors in your reasoning why they wouldn't.
Now it is your turn ... prove me wrong in what I wrote or accept that you can't.
When you've done your part and we have the theory worked out, we may talk about experiments to confirm or rebut the theory.

iC

Wiki is shoite  - use scientific definitions please. Your "take on things" is not based in science hence your logic is faulty . 

Watch the video posted by AATW . Watch professor Globehead fail in his attempts to ignite his rocket fuel with nozzle open to the vacuum . "Aha" says he " the fuel needs pressure to ignite". Well done prof , your learning. "I'll pressurise the rocket by sealing it,s nozzle under air pressure of 14psi."  Yeah right - turn the engine into a bomb - back to buffoon mode.

Thing about Newtons laws is that they were deduced from repeatable scientific experiment .Same with Joules' law concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum There is no acceleration possible without application of a force. This is not "my take " on things  , it's science .

In order to dispute these scientific laws you will have to show the repeatable experiments that prove these laws are erroneous .

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #189 on: February 25, 2020, 12:55:51 PM »
Evidently when a gauge experiences friction, it can cause it to malfunction.

It can cause it to potentially show a wrong reading, but not a significantly wrong reading, unless the thing is properly stuck but you can see in the video that it is not - as the air is pumped out the gauge is clearly shown to go down.

Quote
Plus, how do we know the guy is administering the proper amount of force in each of his taps?
How many newtons was he applying?
Did he deliver enough taps?
All these questions remain unanswered.

They are all silly questions and part of your diversionary tactic of trying to pretend that the gauge is malfunctioning when it clearly isn't.

Quote
Quote
And, as I said above, when the gas from the rocket is vented the gauge does not significantly change reading.
It changes, as you admit.
Adding adjectives like, "significantly," does not help your case.

But you've been arguing that the gauge is faulty, now you're seeing it as significant that the needle moves slightly? ???
I would expect the needle to move slightly, the rocket does vent some gas into the tube. But compared with full atmospheric pressure it's a tiny amount.

Quote
Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.

OK, well this is a fairly reasonable point. It's not a perfect vacuum, they are pretty much impossible to achieve.
But if you believe that rockets work because the gas propelled from them "pushes" against the atmosphere then surely if the pressure is low, even if it's not a perfect vacuum, the rocket would work very poorly. But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.
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 #190 on: February 25, 2020, 01:10:57 PM »
Evidently when a gauge experiences friction, it can cause it to malfunction.

It can cause it to potentially show a wrong reading, but not a significantly wrong reading, unless the thing is properly stuck but you can see in the video that it is not - as the air is pumped out the gauge is clearly shown to go down.
One more time.

Why tap on the gauge at all if it is not malfunctioning?

Why is the videographer simply not proclaiming boldly, for all the world to hear: "SEE, this is a properly working calibrated gauge!"
Quote
Plus, how do we know the guy is administering the proper amount of force in each of his taps?
How many newtons was he applying?
Did he deliver enough taps?
All these questions remain unanswered.

They are all silly questions and part of your diversionary tactic of trying to pretend that the gauge is malfunctioning when it clearly isn't.
I can understand why you choose to categorize the questions as silly, but I can post multiple times where you demand some sort of evidence in support of a proposition.

It is curious you do not hold these demands as meaningful when queried about your propositions.
But you've been arguing that the gauge is faulty, now you're seeing it as significant that the needle moves slightly? ???
I would expect the needle to move slightly, the rocket does vent some gas into the tube. But compared with full atmospheric pressure it's a tiny amount.
Incorrect.

I've been arguing the whole video is a freaking farce and demonstrates itself to be a total sham in numerous areas.

You've been arguing for it's scientific legitimacy and introduced the word,"significantly," as in the needle doesn't significantly move.
Quote
Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.

OK, well this is a fairly reasonable point. It's not a perfect vacuum, they are pretty much impossible to achieve.
But if you believe that rockets work because the gas propelled from them "pushes" against the atmosphere then surely if the pressure is low, even if it's not a perfect vacuum, the rocket would work very poorly. But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.
None of the videos you have posted show a rocket working in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 01:22:24 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #191 on: February 25, 2020, 02:03:17 PM »
One more time.

Why tap on the gauge at all if it is not malfunctioning?
Asked and answered.

Quote
I can post multiple times where you demand some sort of evidence in support of a proposition.
It is curious you do not hold these demands as meaningful when queried about your propositions.

I think assertions should be backed up with some evidence. But I've explained the reason why someone might tap on a pressure gauge and backed it up with a couple of articles including a technical manual which explains exactly why.

Quote
I've been arguing the whole video is a freaking farce and demonstrates itself to be a total sham in numerous areas.

Well, you've been stating that without basis - that is how you seem to roll, you don't ever seem to be able to back up your points.
That's why I've ignored your "incorrect" above and your last sentence. The first is just you saying something without elaboration. You've said I'm wrong but not explained, it's basically another "nuh-uh". The second is you just repeating something over and over - another thing you are wont to do - and you haven't addressed the point I made at all. No response necessary.
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 ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #192 on: February 25, 2020, 03:36:35 PM »
People tap the gauge for the same reason people go for a regular checkup their with the doctor or get their MOT done for their car regularly. To make sure it's all in working order rather than assume it is.It's common sense Totallackey... Quit latching on to stupid arguments, it's going nowhere for you.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #193 on: February 25, 2020, 04:35:26 PM »
My arguments don't need to be numerous.

The couple of them I have written here are sufficient and remain unchallenged.

Well, setting aside the byplay (which involved several challenges to your claims), your main argument was that rockets do not work in a vacuum because of free expansion / Joule expansion.
I have challenged and rebutted that argument.
It is insufficient as it does not apply; the the key requirements for free expansion are not met.
Ball's in your court ...

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

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #194 on: February 25, 2020, 04:41:33 PM »
One more time.

Why tap on the gauge at all if it is not malfunctioning?
Asked and answered.
Answered with a paper that provides no scientific basis or reasoning and actually states you tap on a gauge if it is malfunctioning.
Quote
I can post multiple times where you demand some sort of evidence in support of a proposition.
It is curious you do not hold these demands as meaningful when queried about your propositions.

I think assertions should be backed up with some evidence. But I've explained the reason why someone might tap on a pressure gauge and backed it up with a couple of articles including a technical manual which explains exactly why.
Yes, you did.

It states tap on a gauge if it is malfunctioning.
Quote
I've been arguing the whole video is a freaking farce and demonstrates itself to be a total sham in numerous areas.

Well, you've been stating that without basis - that is how you seem to roll, you don't ever seem to be able to back up your points.
The video backs up my point.

No rocket present.

Malfunctioning gauge.
That's why I've ignored your "incorrect" above and your last sentence. The first is just you saying something without elaboration. You've said I'm wrong but not explained, it's basically another "nuh-uh". The second is you just repeating something over and over - another thing you are wont to do - and you haven't addressed the point I made at all. No response necessary.
I have elaborated by pointing out the proofs your own videos offer in support of a rocket not working in a vacuum.

Not once have I written "nuh-uh"
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 10:47:36 AM by totallackey »

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #195 on: February 25, 2020, 07:42:23 PM »
Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .
No argument with that; quote Wikipedia: "Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's third law. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system."
Wiki is shoite  - use scientific definitions please. Your "take on things" is not based in science hence your logic is faulty . 
I did not provide the Wikipedia quote as a scientific statement, but simply to show, that Wikipedia (and I) agree with your statement.
Your statement 'Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust.'  is even less "scientific" then the Wikipedia quote.
Does that make it "double shite"?

"My take" is very much based in science. Moving from known and accepted (also by yourself) facts to logically sound conclusions.
If you do not agree, point out a "faulty logic" and I'll gladly address it.
If you cannot point out any fault ... there probably isn't one.

Watch the video posted by AATW . Watch professor Globehead fail in his attempts to ignite his rocket fuel with nozzle open to the vacuum . "Aha" says he " the fuel needs pressure to ignite". Well done prof , your learning. "I'll pressurise the rocket by sealing it,s nozzle under air pressure of 14psi."  Yeah right - turn the engine into a bomb - back to buffoon mode.
Please take your own advise to stay "scientific".
I don't know, which kind of rocket fuel and ignition mechanism was used, so I can't really say why it didn't work at first.
Another plausible explanation would be, that due to the vacuum the igniter (which was obviously makeshift) didn't produce enough (concentrated) heat to start the reaction.
In this case, sealing the rocket thereby "focussing the heat" would have worked just as well if done in a vacuum.   

Thing about Newtons laws is that they were deduced from repeatable scientific experiment .Same with Joules' law concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum
Sure, one can go either way - deduce "laws" from observation or confirm "laws" by experimentation.

There is no acceleration possible without application of a force. This is not "my take " on things  , it's science .
And I have not dispute the necessity of force for acceleration
I have also not disputed Joule's law.
Problem is ... "your take", that Joule's law would imply no force is beieng exerted isn't scientifically sound.
In Joule expansion gas molecules "move into the vacuum"; by your own reasoning they cannot move, if there is no acceleration/force. => there is force.

In order to dispute these scientific laws you will have to show the repeatable experiments that prove these laws are erroneous .
I do not dispute those laws.
I do dispute your application of those laws.
The Joule expansion requires a fixed amount of gas, a constant temperature and a closed "container".
If you to apply Joule expansion increasing amount of gas, increasing temperature and an open system (as is the case with rockets), it is up to you to show repeatable experiments with these different parameters.

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

*

Offline flatearthwizard

  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • yo yo yo yo yo yo
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #196 on: February 26, 2020, 04:46:23 AM »
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

https://www.rt.com/usa/410360-moon-landing-new-conspiracy/

hello, i personally believe the moon landing was fake. I do not believe that we cannot do it altogether i just believe that america faked the videos. THe fuzzy proof is a bit of stretch i must admit.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #197 on: February 26, 2020, 10:29:00 AM »
hello, i personally believe the moon landing was fake. I do not believe that we cannot do it altogether i just believe that america faked the videos.

.. but what about; the data? the photos? the ALSEP experiment results? the personal testimony from participants?
=============================
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 #198 on: February 26, 2020, 11:54:36 AM »
People tap the gauge for the same reason people go for a regular checkup their with the doctor or get their MOT done for their car regularly. To make sure it's all in working order rather than assume it is.It's common sense Totallackey... Quit latching on to stupid arguments, it's going nowhere for you.
We all read, according to AATW's source, "Sometimes a mechanical pressure gauge may need a gentle tapping in order to make sure that it is released from any friction or lost flexibility, especially if it has not been exercised in normal use. During the calibration, once the input pressure is stabilized, you can gently tap the gauge to see if the indication changes. Of course, you need to be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge."

So, we do not know if the gauge used was or wasn't experiencing any of the issues described by the source above, plus we do not know if the source is even scientific and peer reviewed.

No mention of what constitutes gentle tapping.

No mention of the amount of taps to be delivered.

No mention of where on the gauge to deliver the taps.

Sorry, I am not latching on to a stupid argument.

It is a legitimate argument.
My arguments don't need to be numerous.

The couple of them I have written here are sufficient and remain unchallenged.

Well, setting aside the byplay (which involved several challenges to your claims), your main argument was that rockets do not work in a vacuum because of free expansion / Joule expansion.
I have challenged and rebutted that argument.
It is insufficient as it does not apply; the the key requirements for free expansion are not met.
Ball's in your court ...

iC
And the videos posted by those in agreement with your position absolutely destroy your rebuttal.

AATW now disagrees with you, as he admits these videos display rockets in operation in an environment that is NOT a vacuum.

The reason: Even he realizes that rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

He knows the videos he has been posting are all misnomered...
Quote
Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.

OK, well this is a fairly reasonable point. It's not a perfect vacuum, they are pretty much impossible to achieve.
But if you believe that rockets work because the gas propelled from them "pushes" against the atmosphere then surely if the pressure is low, even if it's not a perfect vacuum, the rocket would work very poorly. But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #199 on: February 26, 2020, 12:16:24 PM »


[/quote]
... here's my take:


Rockets are about fuel undergoing a chemical reaction, resulting in (lots of) heat, gas and whatever other byproducts.
Energy stored in fuel => chemical reaction => lots of gas (and heat) produced => increased pressure  within rocket motor => physical reaction => gas gets "pushed" out into vacuum => physical reaction => rocket gets "pushed" the other way.

iC

iCare .This is your logical reasoning I presume. The first four steps steps apply to how a rocket engine functions in a pressured environment e.g. our air

However in the vacuum of space :

If ( and that's a big one)you could start the control burn of fuel ( chemical reaction) in a vacuum you could produce heat  . You could not produce pressure since the rocket chamber is open to the vacuum of space . This is where your logic fails . The rocket engine (not a motor ) is unable to produce a force since there is nothing to resist the free expansion of hot gas into the vacuum - Joules law , hence no reactive force .Your logic fails .