21

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

« on: April 24, 2020, 11:37:52 AM »

Paraphrasing your reply...

"Allow me to state I know that gas will freely expand into a vacuum but this does not apply to a rocket.

That doesn't require paraphrasing.
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.

Even though the videos here of rockets attempting to work in a vacuum show they do not work until such time there is adequate surround pressure to allow for functioning."

That is not what the videos show, but simply your interpretation of it.
That interpretation has been convincingly challenged several times by various people.

The processes which you refer to that are reversible and therefore isentropic take place in the tubes, not the exhaust.

What law states, that a thermodynamic process requires a tube to be reversible?
Where, exactly, is "in the exhaust"? Still in the combustion chamber, in the nozzle, outside the rocket, all of the aforementioned or something different? 

iC

22

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

« on: April 24, 2020, 11:08:22 AM »

You can't reverse the exhaust of a rocket...I don't need to look anything up.

Indeed, a rocket's exhaust will not reverse back into the rocket.
However, that doesn't matter, because the overall process doesn't need to be reversible for the relevant thermodynamic process to be reversible.

A rocket is not an isolated experiment with only one thing happening or one parameter changing at one time.
It is a real world application with multiple factors and processes influencing and interacting with each other.
In this case at least three processes, that happen both sequentially and in parallel:

• An exothermic chemical reaction creates (lots of) hot gas.
• That gas is then - in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics - expelled through the nozzle creating thrust.
• After leaving the rocket the exhaust dissipates (regardless, if this happens in an atmosphere or in a vacuum).

The chemical part (1) of the process is obviously not reversible as the gas will not turn back into fuel.
Also, the dissipation part (2) is not reversible - once the exhaust has left the rocket it is no longer available to be "sucked back in" (as it has dissipated).
The thermodynamic part (3), however, is reversible.
If the gas were to cool down to its original temperature in an experimental setting (i.e. no other influences, constant amount of gas, no dissipation) it would eventually contract again and fill the original volume.
That this does not happen due to (1) and (2) doesn't change its basic nature of being reversible.

So, as stated initially, the overall process is not reversible, but the thermodynamic process is reversible. In the end confirming, that work is done and the rocket accelerates in a vacuum.

In contrast free expansion (which has been thoroughly discussed in this thread and is not applicable to rocket propulsion) is not reversible.
Gas will freely expand into an available vacuum and it will not evacuate that volume again to return to its original volume.

iC

23

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

« on: April 11, 2020, 08:51:38 PM »

My central argument is that gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum.
This has certainly not been nullified ...

From what I've read in this discussion, your central argument has been convincingly challenged in several ways by various people.
So far, you have not plausibly refuted those challenges.

The most recent one was stack providing the reference, why Free Expansion is different from rockets operating in a vacuum.
My reasoning is based on the same scientific principles, although I didn't explicitly mention isentropic and nonisentropic.
Ignoring, where your central argument is in conflict with accepted science and simply repeating it does make it valid.

So it is still your turn to prove, why anyone should agree with your central argument despite the valid (open and unrebutted) arguments against it.

iC

BTW: I see you're still quoting me in your signature, despite my objection that you are using those quotes wrongly and out of context.
         Every time I read it, it makes me smile . Says more about you than it says about me.

24

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

« on: April 06, 2020, 04:52:55 PM »

Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.

Looking at the - at times - quite vigorous claims, that Joule's law of free expansion would apply to rockets in a vacuum, I'm a bit surprised, that the discussion would end so abruptly.
However, it does seem to be settled - thanks to everyone who made it an interesting discussion.

iC 

25

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

« on: March 25, 2020, 05:37:01 PM »

Now, please explain what mass is COMING IN to the rocket from the environment!

Why should any mass come into the rocket from the environment during burn?

The definition of an open system is that it can exchange matter, not that it actually must do so.
A rocket before ignition is still an open system, because it can exchange matter with the environment - although it isn't doing so at that specific time.
When ignited, it will expel gas.
When idle, wind could blow air, leaves or whatever into the the rocket. (You could also consider adding fuel as matter coming into the rocket.)
So when talking about open/closed/isolated systems "exchange" obviously means that transfer of matter is possible in both directions.
It does not mean, that any transfer of matter (e.g. expelling exhaust) must be an exchange or that it must happen at any given time.

So I probably should have been more precise in my statement:
A rocket is not a closed system, because it can exchange mass with the outside environment.
When ignited it does transfer mass by expelling gas.

Because the word EXCHANGE means exactly that!
I give you something in EXCHANGE for something!

You are right, we usually expect an exchange to be "something for something".
I wouldn't be averse to argue that "something for nothing" is a special case of an exchange, but - as explained above - that doesn't really matter for our discussion.

iC

26

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

« on: March 25, 2020, 12:54:08 PM »

My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.

Compare this...^

to...

It claims that "rocket + fuel" (to be more precise "rocket + fuel + exhaust") can be defined as a closed system as far as forces are concerned.

this ^ as proof of your contradictory statements.

If you'd give any substantiating reason or explanation for your claim, we could engage in a discussion to learn which statements/claims are valid and which are not.
As you don't, it's once again just an unproven claim.

• A closed system (as usually defined in physics) does not allow the exchange of mass. Mass (gas) is leaving the "enclosure of the rocket", that is an exchange with the environment. Using that definition, the rocket is not a closed system.
• If one extends the view to include rocket + fuel + exhaust (given there are no external forces acting on this system, as would be the case in a vacuum), that system can be considered a closed physical system. Your source names force, but it also applies to exchange of mass.

Both perfectly valid statements, that don't contradict each other.
If you think otherwise, please prove it or at least explain why.

Plus again, you clearly demonstrate a failure to understand the definition of the word "exchange."

If you'd give any substantiating reason or explanation for your claim, we could engage in a discussion to learn which statements/claims are valid and which are not.
As you don't, it's once again just an unproven claim.
What is, by your understanding, the definition of "exchange" and what do think is wrong with mine?

iC

27

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

« on: March 24, 2020, 07:56:24 PM »

Each of the videos presented here definitively show none of the rockets working until such time a pressurized environment exists.

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. 
 

You are ignoring this fact.

No, I'm critically evaluating that fact - and those Videos do not show what you claim they do.

No, I understand a rocket is a closed system.

My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.

Weren't you the one, who said one couldn't have it both ways? 
Now, is it a rocket or is it a rocket and its fuel?
My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.
And what type of closed system are you talking about? As used in physics, chemistry, engineering or colloquial language? Are you aware, there is a difference?

A rocket does not exchange energy with an outside source.

Although this isn't really the point here, a closed system in physics may exchange energy with the outside.
It must not exchange mass, which is why your source made that definition/assumption: For the calculations to be made the way they did, the total mass in the system needs to be constant, i.e. rocket & fuel & exhaust.
For Joule's experiment on Free Expansion in contrast, an isolated system is required.

I did not disagree with your source, which does not state that a rocket is a closed system; it did - for a specific circumstances/parameters and a specific purpose - define rocket & fuel as a closed system.

Again with the contradictions.
My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.
You write a rocket is not a closed system and then quote the source stating it is a closed system.

If you would  pay attention to the details (which is highly advisable in science), you would see that there is no contradiction.
You keep ignoring, that talking about "a rocket" and "a rocket and its fuel (and the resulting exhaust)" is not the same thing.

You have no clue regarding science...at all.

See above. You could only credibly conclude that, if you had more or at least the same clue regarding science that I have.
The reasoning you have brought forward so far, makes that highly unlikely.

Yeah, pointing to the clear evidence in the videos, all showing that pressure is required for gas to do work...

Let me see ...
You link your understanding of science to homemade videos from some enthusiasts on youtube. (No offence, I appreciate their effort, but are they a valid scientific source?)
I link my understanding of science to the actual and commonly accepted scientific laws.
Which confirms my impression: highly unlikely.

I see how reason fails to be a consideration for your thought process...

How do you see that?
I have provided reasons and details on the logical deduction for what I stated. Obviously reason is an integral part of my thought processes. 

Try pointing to something else you can physically grasp and equate it with a mass of gas...go ahead...try a banana...not = gas.

It's really a pity that you fail to recognize which aspects of science can be transferred between different "experiments" (gas and balls are masses, so e.g. Newton's Laws will apply) and which can't (results from an isolated system to an open/closed system).

Spare me and the rest the false equivalencies.

They only seem false, if one doesn't understand them.
I you think you do, please point out why you doubt the equivalency as far as the point I made is concerned: That you do not need to apply force, does not automatically mean, that cannot apply force.

My god, all gas is energized by the process of placing it into a container. When that container opened to a vacuum, the gas does no work.

Actually, it is not.
Take an open container full of air, put an airtight lid on it ... the energy of the gas in the container will not change.
What happens when you open that container depends on how it is opened.

The direction of the plume determines the direction of the rocket.

Actually, it doesn't.
The plume will simply continue in whichever direction it was expelled from the rocket - which is, in deed, usually opposite to the direction the rocket is acceleration in.
But taking your example of the gimballed rocket, the plume will to a degree point in the direction the rocket is turning. And that direction can be changing constantly due to the gimbal.
Also, when starting jets from an aircraft carrier, their plume will be deflected upwards to protect people/equipment behind them. This has no effect on the direction in which the jets accelerate.

You don't even know what a closed system is...this could be an issue.

Indeed, but see above ... it is not me who doesn't know what a closed system is and how do utilize the clever definition of systems in science.

Science agrees that rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Let me come back to your source:
"If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system (since the rocket is in deep space, there are no external forces acting on this system); as a result, momentum is conserved for this system."
Your source obviously believes rockets work in a vacuum (I am sure in "deep space" there is a vacuum.).
Also it states, that the vacuum is a requirement for the definition of "the rocket + fuel" as a closed system.
And "rocket & fuel" are only a closed system, if defined that way. => Defined another (valid) way, they need not be.

In this thread "Conservation of momentum" has been decidedly opposed as not being a reason for why rockets would work in a vacuum.
So you agree, that conservation of momentum is part of why rockets work?

As evidenced by the videos presented here.

Those videos provide no such evidence, just as your source doesn't.

iC

28

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

« on: March 24, 2020, 01:42:43 PM »

It is rather obvious you are ignoring the videos and you fail to understand what the source states.

If it is so obvious, please substantiate your claim.
I can assure you, I haven't ignored the videos and I do understand what the source states.
If that does not match your understanding, it might as well be you, who doesn't understand it, might it not?

There is no way you can have it both ways.

Which two ways are you referring to?
That the plume is not part of the rocket does not preclude that they can both be part of the same system or influence each other.

1) You disagreed with my source initially (which states a rocket is a closed system), with you claiming it is not.
2) You claimed they are not part of the same system, since you do seem to agree a force pair is necessary.
3) Ergo, you are trying to have it both way.

• I did not disagree with your source, which does not state that a rocket is a closed system; it did - for a specific circumstances/parameters and a specific purpose - define rocket & fuel as a closed system.
  I disagreed with your understanding of it and your conclusions. Those circumstances/parameters are different from those of free expansion.
• I did state, that the exhaust is no longer part of the rocket (it has been "exhausted"). It can still be part of the same system (depending on the definition of that system).
  The existence of a force pair is independent of said pair being in the same system or between systems.
  Several different systems can be defined, that validly describe reality or aspects of it.
• I can have it multiple ways, as long as those ways are correct (they are) and are not in conflict with each other (they are not).
  It is a common and useful practice in science to approach problems from multiple perspectives.

You have no clue regarding science...at all.

See above. You could only credibly conclude that, if you had more or at least the same clue regarding science that I have.
The reasoning you have brought forward so far, makes that highly unlikely.

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.

Not being part of is not the same as having no effect.
As in a gimbaled rocket the direction of the exhaust is changed, obviously the direction of the force accelerating the rocket will also change.
Also if the exhausts "hits" anything, including a part of the rocket (e.g. a fin), that will have an effect on that object.

Disagreeing, while agreeing?

What do you think I'm agreeing to and what do you think im disagreeing with at the same time?

No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.

So ... in an atmosphere, there is plume, as - by your explanation - it is pushing against the atmosphere.
Where, when there is no atmoshere, does this plume (magically?) disappear to?

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).

Since the plume is constantly throttled (and being ultimately confined within itself by the pressurized environment), it will always have an effect on the rocket.

• If the plume was confined in itself, it would have to constantly growing, as fuel keeps being burned. It doesn't. I will reach a certain size and all exhaust beyond that will dissipate into the atmosphere.
• What effect, do you think, would it have on the rocket, if a part of the plume (let's assume somewhere in the middle) would be moved in some direction (i.e. by wind)?

It is readily apparent to any viewer the plume is contained by the atmoplane...

See above. It is readily apparent to any viewer, that it is not, as it disperses into the atmosphere.

And is what allows the rocket to function.

If it was contained, then how could it function in an atmosphere?
If - by your claim - rocket and exhaust/plume are a closed system, rockets couldn't work within an atmosphere as the closed system would remain static in relation to the outside. 

Thoroughly and definitively rebutted.
Your arguments are nonsensical, contradictory, and ignore all science.

Not at all.
Claiming rebuttal over and over again without credible or at least new reasons doesn't make it any more credible, just redundant.
Science - including you're source - agrees, that rockets work in a vacuum.
So how can I be ignoring science, when I concur with it?
How can you claim to understand science, when your claims are in conflict with it?

iC

29

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

« on: March 23, 2020, 05:58:38 PM »

If you try to move your body away from your arm, you will (hopefully) fail and your arm will follow your body.
Rocket and exhaust are moving away from each other anyway, they are no longer part of each other.
What one does has no direct effect on the other.
One may consider them part of an (abstract) system, but that's a different story.

Clearly wrong.
We have already written about this at length, and here science clearly disagrees with you.

Clearly wrong ... why?
We have written about it, you have failed to prove your point and the source you provided agrees with me.

There is no way you can have it both ways.

Which two ways are you referring to?
That the plume is not part of the rocket does not preclude that they can both be part of the same system or influence each other.

This is approaching magical territory in the level of claim being made here.

Any "claims" I made, are based on accepted scientific laws and their correct application; nothing magical about it.
If this seems like magic to you, you might consider reviewing the science?

Are you one of those claiming a door could be opened in the bottom of the rocket, bricks could tumble out and the rocket would still launch from the pad?

No, why would I?

If bricks "freely" tumble out of the rocket it would not effect the rocket except for it getting lighter.
If the rocket was a balloon "dropping ballast", that could make it lift off, but that's a different principle.

However, if bricks were "ejected" from the bottom of the rocket, there would be an equal force pushing the rocket up.
In reality it would be difficult, however, to eject enough bricks at high a enough speed to actually launch a "brick rocket".
 

Why have gimbled engines if the plume is not part of the rocket, or has no effect?

You really need to get a better understanding of the total system and pay more attention to detail.
Not being part of is not the same as having no effect.
As in a gimbaled rocket the direction of the exhaust is changed, obviously the direction of the force accelerating the rocket will also change.
Also if the exhausts "hits" anything, including a part of the rocket (e.g. a fin), that will have an effect on that object.

No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.

So ... in an atmosphere, there is plume, as - by your explanation - it is pushing against the atmosphere.
Where, when there is no atmoshere, does this plume (magically?) disappear to?

Also "the plume" is not a static entity. As an abstract maybe, but in reality, the gas in contact with the rocket is constantly changing as it's moving away from the rocket being replaced with "new" gas.

Denies the plume is part of the rocket, yet here^ admits it is.

Where do you see any "admitting" in that quote?
As mentioned above, not being part of a rocket does not equal having no effect on it.
While e.g. within within the confines of the nozzle, the exhaust will naturally have a stronger effect on the rocket.
After being expelled that effect will quickly diminish.

So the plume is never contained within itself, as in any environment its "contents" are moving away from the rocket backwards and dissipating.

Yes it is.
By the pressure of the atmoplane.

Depends on you definition of contained, but generally ... no.
There is no barrier between the "atmoplane" and the plume.They will mix, no containment.
That does not preclude, that different atmospheric pressure will have an effect on the shape of the plume; it is actually the reason why rockets built for different environments (including vacuum) have differently shaped nozzles.

Gas, when released to a vacuum, does no work.

As you provide no further argument, my explanation why this is not relevant to the way rockets work, stands unrebutted.

iC

30

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

« on: March 21, 2020, 04:19:08 PM »

Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.

I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions

Then provide the scientific experiment and its data that enables you to make the claim that no work does not equal no force.

As you keep evading my question, I will ask it again:
Why should I provide an experiment to prove a law or an accepted (by you) formula?

You erroneously equate "your take on things"- your words not mine - with  knowledge of the laws of physics yet you consistently are unable to provide any scientific experimental data to back up your gobshoite .

That I - at one time - used the words "my take on things" neither implicates that every comment is "my take" nor does it make "my take" wrong.

W = F x d is not "my take", it is an formula you yourself brought forward as proof.

• F=0 => W=0: d may have any value; e.g. an objectis "coasting" along, no force applied; it will move a distance, but no work is performed.
• d=0 => W=0: F may have any value; e.g. an objectis "held stationary", no movement; force is applied, but no work is performed.
• F=0 and d=0 => W=0: an object remains stationary with no force applied.

There are three valid ways for W to be 0 (3 is somewhat redundant, but it is still a worth being listed).
You are claiming one of them (2) is invalid thereby disagreeing with accepted science (brought forward by yourself).
You are challenging laws of physics (not my take on it), so it is up to you, to come up with an experiment or other prove. Can you?

The laws of physics  are not subject to your take on things so show the experimental proof that a rocket engine will be able to convert thermal energy , which is not a force, into kinetic energy able to produce a force in  a vacuum.
Give the evasion and gobshoite sophistry a rest - just provide the scientific experiment that contradicts the Joules law which states that thermal energy does no work in a vacuum.

See above, they are, indeed, not. So they are not subject to your take either. Your take "no work => no force" is in conflict with the  laws of physics.

As you keep misquoting me:

• I do not question Joule's Law of Free Expansion, why would I need a experiment to agree with Joule's Law?
  I'm simply pointing out, that your are using it wrongly ("your take" is in conflict with the laws of physics).
• Joule's Law of Free Expansion is not in conflict with rockets working in a vacuum.
• As the chemical reaction is taking place inside the rocket, creating and heating gas inside the rocket, it doesn't even have to do work in a vacuum. Rockets can function in a vacuum, because the external environment is not relevant to them (at least in our context).
• Joule's Law still doesn't apply to any situation, just because "vacuum" mentioned somewhere. It does not apply to how rockets work (as explained in previous posts).

https://sites.google.com/a/jeffcoschools.us/physics-digital-portfolio--cara-jacobs/home/journal/cara-physicsexplorewhatistherelationshipbetweenforceworkanddisplacement

I shouldn't have to ask, but did you even check, whom you are quoting?
"I am 17 years old and currently a high school senior. I created this page  to help track, showcase, and reflect on my progress in Physics."
This seems to have been written in 2013.
No offense to the author, but couldn't you find a quote from a more professional, peer reviewed source? 
Regardless, what she has posted is correct. Your conclusion, however, is not.

Read the fourth sentence , it states unequivocally that work and force are directly proportional to each other . Now that means in plain language that when one of those is zero then so is the other. What proportion of force could be different if work = 0 and vice versa. You cant have half of zero or three times zero.

I did and it doesn't hint at any sophistry or wrong "take on things" on my side ... it shows, however, that you do not understand proportional functions/relations.

Given two variables x and y, y is directly proportional to x[1] if there is a non-zero constant k such that y=kx. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics))
As you correctly noted, you can't usefully half/double/... zero, that is why k must not be zero.

What your quote is actually saying (if you add basic mathematics) is that if F or d are zero, proportionality is not defined.
Which really makes sense, as the proportionality (k) constant can be expressed as the ratio k=x/y, which is not defined for y=0 (y=W=no work).

Also the first sentence in your reference is "In Physics, work is defined as the result of a force moving an object a certain distance."
=> The result of force not moving an object is not work.

To sum it up:
Your reasoning is still faulty und you just made it worse.

iC

31

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

« on: March 21, 2020, 12:01:48 PM »

Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.

I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions

• I do not need to provide an experiment to prove the scientific formula, you yourself have provided as proof. W = F x d. Enter an arbitrary value (other than 0) for F when d=0 => W=0, F<>0, formula is correct
• In contrast, it is up to you to prove, why 0=F x 0 (W=0, d=0) would be wrong for f<>0. That is at least (as pointed out before) a gap in your reasoning.
• Holding the mug stationary is still a valid experiment. d=0, so (by the formula you used yourself) W=0; F<>0, because if it were, your arm wouldn't tire. But it does, as you confirmed yourself.

So why are you refusing to address the flaws in your reasoning?
Why do you instead keep asking for an experiment (that has been provided) to prove a proven law?

Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .

I couldn't say, as there is no lack in my knowledge of the laws of physic (at least not concerning the basic stuff we are discussing).

iC

32

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

« on: March 21, 2020, 10:23:38 AM »

Holding a pint of beer up involves work - that's why your arm tires after a while . Work is being done

You need to differentiate between "work" as used in everyday language and "work" as defined in science.
Your arm is not tiring, because you're doing work as defined in physics.
Actually your arm is tiring, because you are straining against work being done - the mug falling down.

- upwards and downwards forces are opposing vector forces , They don't cancel each other out but are added together - opposite vectors are equal and you can hold the glass in a steady position but work is done.

If it is steady, no work is done, because d=0; F doesn't matter (other than it must keep the mug stationary).
Adding opposing vectors of equal length is actually the same thing as "cancelling out", like (-1)+(+1)=0.

In mechanics ( a rocket engine is a machine ) work is directly proportional to force as shown in the equation    W(work) = F(force) x d(distance object moves)

The exhaust moves a distance (as it is moving away from the rocket) and obviously some force must be causing that. => Work is not 0.

So when W = 0 in the equation W = F x d then F must be zero also since solving for F = W/d = 0/d = zero . Always .

You are forgetting, that d=0 (object stationary). F can be anything, as  F(force) x 0 [d(distance object moves)] will always be 0.

This renders your statement that "no work does not mean no force" is not true and is meaningless . Simple basics. 

No, it proves my statement.
If d=0 then W=0, regardless of F. => No work for any value of F (including, but not only, 0).
No force will result in no work (as d doesn't matter in that case), but reverse conclusion cannot be made (as d, when 0, does matter).

Heating gas is addition of thermal energy not kinetic energy .

I was explicitly making a distinction between temperature of the gas and kinetic energy of its molecules. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules is proportional to the temperature of a gas.

Joules in his experiment heated his gas adding thermal energy- released his thermal energy through a hole/vent /throttle and no work was done . That's a law.

Could you please add a supporting reference for that?
All descriptions of Free Expansion and the related experiments explicitly I found state, that the container must insulate the gas to prevent any heating of the gas.

What you have made clear is that you don't understand basic physics . W = F x d .

See above, quite the opposite.
My statements are fully in line with the laws of physics.

The debate is no longer Tumeni . iCare has shown a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics . As you do too if you think that holding an object aloft requires no work , there is no contradiction . When W = 0 then F=0 .

See above.
The debate isn't over, just because you "decree" so and certainly not because of my alleged lack of knowledge, as I have repeatedly proven otherwise.
W=0 when F or d are 0. As d=0 for a stationary object W=0 regardless of F.

Sophistry will not alter the laws of physics.

Indeed, but as previously mentioned, it is not me using sophistry.
Wouldn't you rather call it sophistry, when someone claims "When W = 0 then F=0" glossing over the fact, that F needn't be 0 when d=0?

iC

33

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

« on: March 20, 2020, 05:25:37 PM »

Of course it has an impact on the rocket.

How can it do that, once it has left the rocket, and is no longer in contact with it?

A rocket exhaust is part of the rocket.
Just like your arm is part of your body.

I usually try not bump into other subtreads, but as we have been disputing the same issue before:
No, it is not.
If you try to move your body away from your arm, you will (hopefully) fail and your arm will follow your body.
Rocket and exhaust are moving away from each other anyway, they are no longer part of each other.
What one does has no direct effect on the other.
One may consider them part of an (abstract) system, but that's a different story.

The rocket and the plume are one.
The plume is consistently in contact with the bell nozzles as long as it is running.
The plume is consistently maintained within itself as long as there is a pressurized environment to contain it.
No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.

They are - see above - not.
Also "the plume" is not a static entity. As an abstract maybe, but in reality, the gas in contact with the rocket is constantly changing as it's moving away from the rocket being replaced with "new" gas.
So the plume is never contained within itself, as in any environment its "contents" are moving away from the rocket backwards and dissipating.
Without outside pressure, the plume will just dissipate more quickly (which doesn't matter, as thrust has been created before that), as it is not constrained by external pressure, but it will still be there.

"And no work" doesn't apply anyway.

iC

34

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

« on: March 20, 2020, 04:29:57 PM »

Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".

Clarify this statement please iCare .

Sure, no problem. I have already done so in response to one of your previous posts:

Joules law of free expansion of gas into a vacuum . No work is done therefore no force therefore no reaction therefore no acceleration .

Again, as explained before:

• No work is not the same as no force applied. If you hold a weight stationary with your arm extended (for fun, imagine a mug of beer), no work is done, as the object doesn't move; however upward and downward forces are applied - in this case they cancel each other out.
• Joule's law of free expansion does not apply, because it describes a completely different process.

 

I also referred to it in one of my recent posts:

"No work done" (comparing initial state and end state) does not mean "no force"; it means - in this case - same temperature at the beginning and at the end of the experiment.
Free expansion works, because at a certain temperature gas molecules have a specific kinetic energy that has them moving around randomly.

To expand on this:
Depending on the temperature of a gas it's molecules will have a certain kinetic energy that has them "bouncing around randomly".
They bounce against (and reflect) each other, but they also bounce against the walls of a container that is enclosing them => manifesting as "pressure".
Heat the gas => more kinetic energy => more pressure (for cooling it's the other way round).
Enlarge the size of the container => less hits on the enclosure => less pressure (for reducing the size of the container it's the other way round).
Now, here it gets a bit tricky, as compressing/decompressing gas can actually change its temperature, but let's ignore that and look at Free Expansion only:
Forces are constantly being applied between molecules-molecules and molecules-enclosure due to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Everything is in balance and the gas molecules are pushing against all sides of the container equally.
Now the container is enlarged by opening the partition that contains "nothing" (a vacuum).
No work done, as the heat/kinetic energy of the gas/molecules does not change, but the same kinetic energy will still distribute them evenly throughout the enlarged volume (moving into the vacuum implies, there must be a force that is responsible for it to happen).
Simply because there is no resistance from the vacuum and consequently random movement will go on until a balanced state ("equilibrium") is reached.
The forces on the enclosing container and between molecules then balance each other out again. No work done (comparing initial and end state; in between things are "in a flow").
The only difference being, that the pressure is reduced proportionally to the enlarging of the volume. 
That would be how Free Expansion works.

If, however, you open the container, that balance is destroyed.
There will still be forces on the enclosure, but the balancing force is missing where the container is open.
(And that is not even taking into account, that in the case of a rocket engine the effect is amplified by the exothermic reaction as it generates heat and additional hot gas.)
=> Gas molecules will "leave" the container without exerting force on it. At the same time, gas molecules will still be "pushing" at the opposite side of the container.
=> Newton's Third Law. The container experiences a force in the opposite direction of the opening, equivalent to the force, that's expelling the gas molecules through the opening (strictly speaking, it's equivalent to the energy the expelled gas molecules take with them instead of counter-balancing the remaining forces).
=> Now the balance of forces is no longer internal to the container, but it is between the container (rocket) going one way and gas molecules going the other way.
This is, why you cannot ignore the effect of the enclosure/container. Expanding into a vacuum within the same container is not the same as "expanding" into any vacuum.
This is why Joule's Law of Free Expansion describes something different than what's happening to create thrust in a rocket.

This is also, why a rocket will work regardless of what is (or isn't) outside. The balance of forces (active-reactive) is not happening outside.

If there is an outer pressure to resist the exhaust flow then we will have an active force and reactive force - Newton's laws.
No outer pressure ,vacuum conditions , then no work done = no active or reactive force . Joules law. Gas (thermal energy) expands freely into the vacuum.

The active-reactive force cannot be created by outer pressure.
Outer pressure could push a rocket forward, like wind pushes a sailboat forward, but that would be regardless of the sails providing additional against the wind or simply being there.
If the rocket wasn't ignited yet, that outer pressure would still be there, applying force to the back of the rocket ... so why doesn't it move the rocket?
Because there is equal pressure from the environment all around the rocket; the effects of "outer pressure" cancel each out.
As to Joule's Law ... see above.

Did that clarify my statement?
I'll be happy to answer any remaining questions.

iC

35

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

« on: March 19, 2020, 06:17:50 PM »

No one is questioning Newton's laws .
Provide details of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law (the one that relates to work in a vacuum) . Straight forward enough.

As I keep trying to explain: You are questioning Newton's Laws.
A rocket provides thrust by accelerating a mass (gas, as can easily be observed as exhaust) in one direction, which - by Newton's Law - requires another mass (the rocket) to undergo a corresponding acceleration in the opposite direction.
Newton's Third Law, straightforward. No reason it shouldn't provide thrust unless you can prove so.

I cannot provide details "of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law", because providing thrust in a vacuum is not in contravention of Joule's Law.

"No work done" (comparing initial state and end state) does not mean "no force"; it means - in this case - same temperature at the beginning and at the end of the experiment.
Free expansion works, because at a certain temperature gas molecules have a specific kinetic energy that has them moving around randomly.
At the beginning of Joule's experiment they do so within a smaller volume.
After removing the barrier to the vacuum part of the container the gas molecules' random movement simply continues, but with the barrier gone, it will eventually take the molecules across the whole volume.
There is no work done, because the gas doesn't have to to extra work to move into the previously empty volume.
The vacuum provides no resistance and the the random movement of the gas molecules so it (and hence the temperature) does not change, it simple gets more space to happen in.
=> Temperature stays the same; if the volume increases by factor x, the pressure will decrease by factor x.

Due to the exothermic chemical reaction that powers a rocket, the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases a lot and and additional gas molecules are generated (also hot, i.e. with high kinetic energy).
=> This is not Free Expansion.
Initial state: little/no gas, cold
Fuel burning: lots of (new) gas, hot
=> The high kinetic energy of the gas molecules forces gas through the nozzle and (Newton's Third Law) accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction.   

iC

36

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

« on: March 19, 2020, 01:07:10 PM »

The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).

Yet you are unable to provide any details of these experiments which you say have provided proof . Where be they?

I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am referring to the experiments, that led to e.g. Newton's Law.
Why would I need to point to experiments to support a law that is already accepted as a Law of Physics/Nature.

iC

37

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

« on: March 19, 2020, 01:03:42 PM »

What happens when the rockets go off in these videos?
They remain perfectly still, until such time a pressurized environment exists...
There goes your argument.

Not really.

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.

• Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.

Right here is your problem in a nutshell...

Any gas (regardless of how it is contained and regardless of how it released) when released to the presence of a vacuum, expands freely.

Period, end of sentence.

All gas, when placed in a container, is confined at pressure.

When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.

Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".
Also you might review the Joule–Thomson effect, as the way the gas is released does make a difference.
And it still stands to be proven, that Joule's experiment can be generalized from a closed container to open vacuum.
As far as I recall, there is no work done, because the forces inside the container balance each other out - which would not happen in a rocket that is open to vacuum.

iC

38

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

« on: March 19, 2020, 12:16:54 PM »

icare will have to show the scientific experiment that proves his ad nauseum "explanation".

No, he will not. Why would I need to provide prove for what as been proven over and over again?
The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).
The correct application of those laws and the findings of those experiment all line up to prove that rockets do not care about their environment. => They work in a vacuum.

Your interpretation of the laws/experiments and the way you apply them to how rockets are incorrect - that is what I have pointed out and explained.
As mentioned before: Even if rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, it would not be because of the reasons you have given.

Taking the example of Free Expansion again:

• No work does not equal no force.
• Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.
• You cannot simply ignore the difference between a closed container and opening towards a vacuum.
• The law/experiment have requirements/a specific setup, that are different from how rockets are built/work.

Joule's Law does not say, that rockets couldn't work in a vacuum.

So it is not up to me to show why the laws are what they are.
It is up to you to show how the breaks in your logic can be fixed.
If you can't it is likely because you are wrong.

iC

39

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

« on: March 19, 2020, 11:16:21 AM »

As I recall, sitting on a swing when I was younger, I would need to push my feet off the ground to get started.
Younger than that, I would need a push from somebody else.

Please stop confusing general principles with specific personal experiences.
It is of course more effective to push off the ground by directly applying the strength of your muscles or getting a push from another person.
Especially when you are a child and your feet are very light, your legs are very short and your coordination is less than perfect.
It is also easier to apply "swinging techniques" once the swing has stared swinging.
This does not alter the fact, that when one mass (feet) is accelerated one way, an equal force will accelerate another mass (rest of body) the other way.

I will move in exactly the opposite direction from where I swung my legs.

No...

No explanation, deserves no response.

At lest under perfect conditions.

As you admit now.

I don't "admit" it as I didn't hide/deny it before.
I'm sorry, but I keep forgetting, that I need to point out the obvious to avoid misunderstandings.
I had assumed that we all know, that the real world (including experiments) is rarely (if ever) perfect.
Are you aware, that for Joule's Law of Free Expansion, there is a relevant difference between "real" in contrast to "perfect" gases?

If it's some lopsided rope swing or swinging not in line with your center of mass, it won't work that well.

Center of mass for swing is located on the seat of the swing.

It certainly is not. For a sitting body the center of mass is usually somewhere between navel and sternum.
Which makes sense, as most of ones bodily mass is in the upper body.

Force for movement is transmitted through the hips.

It will not move you very far, but it will get you started.

Nope.

No explanation, deserves no response.

You aadmitted differently above.

What do you think I admitted?
It will certainly get you started under perfect conditions. => It works.
Under non-perfect conditions it may not work as well or not at all, but that doesn't change anything.

Under perfect conditions I can easily light a candle with a match. In a storm I likely can't.
Not being able to light a candle with a match in a storm does not prove, it's impossible to prove a candle with a match.

Too bad the videos here clearly demonstrate a rocket requires a pressurized environment to work.

It is not bad, because they don't.
That is your interpretation of the video and that interpretation has been convincingly disputed by several people.

iC
Edited: Added clarification to fix perceived offense.

40

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

« on: March 18, 2020, 07:09:04 PM »

The swing requires a start.

No it doesn't, why would it? It's being started by your movement.
If you don't have a swing ready, try it on a office chair on wheels (I just confirmed it myself).
Start completely at rest, feet down. Quickly straighten your legs, moving your feet up and forward.
Your chair will move in in the opposite direction. Assuming of course, it is free moving on wheels.

You will move wildly about with an impetus one direction or another

I will move in exactly the opposite direction from where I swung my legs.
At lest under perfect conditions. If it's some lopsided rope swing or swinging not in line with your center of mass, it won't work that well.

But simply sitting on the swing at a standstill and moving your legs will not start the swing moving for and then aft of the pivot point.

It will not move you very far, but it will get you started.

After a swing starts, you can continue the motion of swing and even increase intensity by the action you describe, but there is a pushing motion involved and it is directed at the seat of the swing.

If you really want to get the swing going, there will be several techniques involved. Leaning your whole body forward and backward, applying leverage to the rope, ...
But that was not my point. Kicking out your legs with the swing at rest will push it the other way.
Just as pushing gas away from where the fuel is burned inside the rocket, will push the rocket the other way.
No initial movement needed, no atmosphere needed, just action-reaction.

iC