61

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

« on: March 09, 2020, 05:27:34 PM »

iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum?

• See the recent posts of Tumeni and thors_evil_twin ... that it has been done in pratice and is pretty much done on a regular basis (i.e. keeping the ISS in orbit), should suffice.
• As repeatedly stated, the previously discussed experiments showing that rockets will work at very low pressure indicate, that the same will bei true in a vacuum (in line with laws of physics), whereas there is no indication, that a total vacuum would be significant difference to very low pressure (actually that would be in conflict with accepted laws of physics).
• Your claim, that rockets will not work because of Joule's Law / free expansion is wrong in any case. Even if rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, it wouldn't be because of Joule's Law.

The claim in this thread was, that rockets wouldn't work because of Joule's Law. This has been rebutted.
Accept, that you are wrong or prove that you are not ... the ball remains in your field ...

Which scientific experiment allows iCare to state that these laws don't apply to a rocket in a vacuum ?

As repeatedly explained, Joule's Law itself does, see below:

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

No, it is the other way round.
Joule's Law - as repeatedly explained - is based on a specific situation/setup/requirements: fixed amount of gas, no heat exchange, closed container
All three are different for rockets.
If you want to apply Joule's Law to rockets you have to show - for each of them - that Joule's Law still applies, despite you changing its parameters.

Otherwise your spouting bs .

Quite like you, to a finish a post - that was underwhelming to begin with - with foul language.   

iC

62

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

« on: March 07, 2020, 09:26:35 PM »

Grown up version .

Well,I'd say it's teenager version at best.
As - once again - you miss the relevant points, you might want to understand the kids' version first.

The size of the container is irrelevant - he'll show you how to work it all out.

I didn't say, the size was relevant, but it is relevant, that it is a container.
The gas and the vacuum are in one enclosed space; no openings.
If it is not a container, you run into havoc with V2.

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

Joules law was derived from experiment in a closed system because you couldn't have a vacuum without one on earth now could you .

No, it was derived from a closed system, because the closed system is a requirement.
You conveniently ignored the part, where the amount of gas and the temperature are consant.
He emphasizes - more than once - that the temperature is kept constant, no heat added. This is obviously not true for rockets.
On a side note: even with a closed system ... do you really think, they could get a true vacuum, when we have a hard time getting close even now?
Come to think of it ... Joule's Law experiments most likely don't get closer to true vacuum than the experiments showing rockets/guns working in "close to vacuum" conditions.
By your own reasoning ... doesn't that invalidate Joule's Law?

A little rocket chamber and the big vacuum of space  - a closed system ?

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

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

A lot of things have been known by scientists in the past, which had to be reconsidered when new knowledge was gained.
What did make scientists before 1930 believe, that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum?

Have you managed to find the experiment that proves rocket engines can produce thrust in a vacuum ?

Until you manage to grasp even the basics of the problem, I really see no reason to do so.
As pointed out several times, the experiments provided in this thread nicely show, that rockets will work in very low pressure.
There is no scientific reason, why going from "almost vacuum" to "vacuum" should make a significant difference.
 

Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers

No, they aren’t.

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

No, they are not.
You can "safely open" a bomb or a cartridge without any pressure escaping either.
Might get a little, if they were assembled at sea level and you open them high in the mountains, but that is merely ambient pressure, true for any container, that gets sealed at a certain environmental pressure.

iC

63

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

« on: March 07, 2020, 12:42:49 PM »

Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers .

Well, most of the time, they are not.
A common bomb is mostly solid until it is detonated, the same is true for a cartridge (isn't the bullet only the part that gets expelled?).

So when fired the chemical reaction takes place explosively within

Looks like we agree on that at least; the (chemical) reaction will create pressure (by rapidly increasing the amount of gas and heat).

these pressurised containers the bomb will fragment and the bullet will be ejected by force since it is designed to eject before the casing disintegrates. All in accordance with

And what, as I have already asked serveral times, is the difference between bursting the shell, ejecting a bullet and expelling gas?
It's all the same basic process (chemical reaction creates force) and it doesn't care about vacuum or any other environment at all.

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

Repeating an unproven claim doesn't prove it.
Adding superlatives to unproven accusation doesn't prove them.
Says more about the person who feels the need to stoop to that level than the one it is directed at.

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

As above: Resorting to name-calling does not prove your point. It only demonstrates your "competence" with foul language ...

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

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

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

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

iC

64

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

« on: March 06, 2020, 03:54:06 PM »

I make no such claim .

You claim, that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Rockets work because of Newton's 3rd Law.
Newton's 3rd Law works in a vaccumm.
=> You claim Newton's 3rd Law is invalid ... prove your claim.

The laws of physics in vacuum or under pressure are clearly known .

I did hope so.
But even if they were clearly known, it seems they are - as you keep demonstrating - not clearly understood by everyone.
 

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

I wouldn't know, as I'm not in violation of the laws of physics; that's why I asked you - as your claim (rockets don't work in a vacuum) violates Newton's 3rd Law, you should be able to point to such an experiment.

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

Agreed, they will explode if the explosive force is greater than the containing force of the container - regardless of vacuum or no vacuum.
Which laws are you referring to, specifically?

The same laws of physics predict that a rocket engine ( which is not a bomb) will do no work in a vacuum .

While a rocket is not a bomb, they pretty much do the same thing: A chemical reaction creates (among other things) gas and heat.
They differ insofar, as a explosion happens in a short period of time, is (once it starts) uncontrolled and the explosive force goes "everywhere", whereas a rocket burns fuel over a longer period of time, can be controlled and is directed in a specific direction.
So why would one work and not the other?

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

Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber and known to science - Joules

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

iCare is unable to provide the definitive repeatable scientific experiment and it's results showing that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .

You cannot tell, if I'm unable - but I can assure you, that I see no need to provide a "definitive" experiment to prove laws, that are already proven, while you're not even able to provide a simple experiment proving your claim.

This is because it cannot be done .

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

In order to protect the fallacy that rockets work in the vacuum of space he provides a wall of waffle , garbage , shoite or whatever description .

I think shooting your mouth off like this ... makes it quite obvious, that you are the one who is trying hide his fallacy behind a wall of waffle - not me.

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

Rest assured, I do not have to do this.
I have already done a lot of research and laid out the scientific proof (e.g. Newton's 3rd Law) repeatedly and in detail.
In contrast you still haven't addressed any of the questions I asked, instead resorting to repetition and bluster.

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

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

iC

65

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

« on: March 05, 2020, 06:58:57 PM »

Post details of the repeatable scientific experiment that shows that a hot gas can produce work by expanding into a vacuum . That is all you have to do . Why won't you do this ?

Because the experiment you're asking for - once again showing a serious lack of understanding of the physics involved - has nothing to do with how rockets work.
Thrust is not produced by "hot gas expanding into a vacuum", it is produced by one mass (gas) accelerating in one direction and another mass (rocket) accelerating in the opposite direction.
=> Newton's 3rd Law.
You are challenging Newtons's 3rd Law, so ... why don't you post details of a repeatable scientific experiment that proves Newton's Laws wrong?

The reason you don't do this is because there isn't one , hence your waffle .

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

iC

66

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

« on: March 04, 2020, 06:55:04 PM »

So you and science cannot show the scientific experiment that proves a rocket can produce thrust in a vacuum .

Science has shown over and over agein, that when a mass is accelerated/expelled on way, another may must be equally accelerated in the opposite direction.
This happens before the vacuum (or any other environment) even becomes an issue. The gas gets accelerated within the rocket so Newton's Law is at work first.
Rebut Newton's Laws first, then we can move on to Joule's Law.

If it makes things easier for you, imagine the the rocket as one mass, the chemical reaction as a loaded spring and the (exhaust) gas as another mass.
In any environment (including vacuum, excluding solid rock and the like) when the energy of the spring is released (analogous to the chemical reaction setting free the stored energy), one mass will accelerate one way and the other mass will accelerate the other way.
Newton's Law doesn't care "into which medium" either mass gets accelerated.
The expelled gas has mass. It's not solid, so it's not exactly the same, but it is mass so Newton's Law will apply. Mass (gas) accelerates one way, other mass (rocket) accelerates the other way

Perhaps you can tell us why Joules Law , derived from scientific study , should not according to you apply in the vacuum of space.

I have asked before and I'm asking again: Do you even read my responses?
I did not say, Joule's Law wouldn't work in the vacuum of space (if the requirements for it to apply are met).
I did, however say, that it does not apply to how rockets work.
It would be nice, if you could address at least one of the reasons I've already given for Joule's Law not being applicable to how rockets work.
I have provided arguments, why Joule's Law doesn't apply, so it is your turn to provide counterarguments, why it should.

iC

67

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

« on: March 04, 2020, 05:01:45 PM »

You are actually beginning to understand rocketry now.

Actually, I've understood it from the beginning of this discussion.
It is fun, however, to deepen that understanding.

Internal pressure can only increase if there is an outer pressure to provide resistance.

Internal pressure can also increase, when the amount of gas inside is increasing faster than it can "escape" to the outside.
Try exhaling with your mouth open first and then with your mouth (almost) closed. You should notice pressure building the second time.
There is (the same) outside pressure in both cases, so it doesn't prove anything for a vacuum, but it should give you an idea of the underlying physics; the effect would be the same in a vacuum.

In a vacuum there is no outer pressure = no thrust .

Rebutted several times. You may want to reread my more detailed post:

Thrust is produced by accelerating/expelling the gas. Resistance of the environment is not important, because thrust has been created before resistance even becomes relevant.

Thermal energy expands freely into the vacuum .

As per your own request - please try to keep it scientifically sound.
"Thermal energy" does not "expand".

All proven by scientific experiment.

Well, then go ahead and provide one.
None of the experiments linked in this discussion have shown that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum.

Provide the scientific experiment that shows rocket can produce thrust in a vacuum.

We can keep passing this back and forth, but my line of reasoning does not violate any scientific laws, so I do not need to prove what is already proven.
You, on the other hand, are claiming Newton's Laws do not work in a vacuum, so you go ahead prove them wrong.

No more sophistry.

I'm curious, how long you'll manage to keep that promise.

iC

68

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

« on: March 04, 2020, 04:05:39 PM »

Yep , as soon as internal pressure overtakes external pressure then a force is produced resulting in thrust.

Not quite.
The force is produced in any case. However, if the external pressure is higher than the internal pressure, the gas won't be "exhausted" => no acceleration of gas => no acceleration of the rocket in the opposite direction.

No external pressure = no force (or work done) . Joules law .

Not at all.
No external pressure =>  internal pressure is higher than external pressure by default. Rockets work even better in a vacuum.
This is not Joule's Law. Joule's Law describes thermodynamics in a closed volume, there is no "external pressure" in Joule's Law.

You might want to learn the laws of physics. You seem unable to follow the physical process.

I think, you should consider taking your own advice.
So far my impression is, that AATW has demonstrated a much better understanding of the physical process than you have.

iC

69

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

« on: March 04, 2020, 03:54:31 PM »

Your posts are hard to decipher -

I think, if you kept my responses in context and quoted them correctly, it would make deciphering a lot easier. 

Explain how a reactive force (thrust) is produced when there is no resistance to the free expansion of gas into a vacuum .

The same way - as explained over and over - it is produced, when there is resistance in an atmosphere (or in any other environment).
Thrust is produced (in short) by the chemical reaction of burning fuel; this is completely independent of the environment.
The force and reactive force are between the rocket and the gas (produced by the chemical reaction); where the gas "goes to", vacuum or atmosphere, doesn't really matter.

You say ,correctly in that first sentence above that thrust is produced when there is resistance in an atmosphere or any environment which produces resistance .

What you present out of context is only part of what I said.
My complete statement (including the question it was an answer to, see underlined passages) is:
"A reactive force (thrust) is produced, when there is no resistance, the same way it is produced, when there is resistance. Vacuum or atmosphere, doesn't really matter"

Therefore the reactive force of thrust is dependent on environment.

How do you get to that conclusion? Please explain.
Saying "a car can accelerate uphill" does not imply it "cannot accelerate downhill"; especially when explicitly stating "a car can accelerate downhill the same way it accelerates uphill".

Second sentence you state otherwise .

No, as explained above, my statement is "rockets create thrust in a vacuum the same way they do in any other environment".

Especially as the one, who has (wrongly) accused me of sophistry, please don't try to read something into my responses, that obviously isn't there.

Thrust is not produced by any chemical reaction , chemical reactions produce thermal energy .

That is - at best - a misleading statement.

• Chemical reactions don't only produce thermal energy; in the case of rockets they produce (at least) thermal energy and (a large amount of) gas.
• Chemical reactions can also consume thermal energy (An endothermic reaction is any chemical reaction that absorbs heat from its environment.)

Thrust is created when a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction; this happens in a rocket and is powered by the chemical reaction of burning rocket fuel.

In a rocket engine this thermal energy increases the pressure inside the chamber which forces the exhaust gas out of the chamber 

Again, this is misleading. While increasing the thermal energy of a gas (all other things being equal) does increase its pressure, the important aspect here is, that the chemical reaction creates large amounts of additional gas.
Imagine it as the chemical reaction "pumping additional gas into the reaction chamber" - this is responsible for a large part of the increased pressure. 

where it encounters the resistive pressure of the air .

If there is air - yes. If there isn't, it doesn't make a signifikant difference.

Thrust is produced by resistance to this active force . Thermal energy converts to kinetic energy .

Thrust is produced by accelerating/expelling the gas. Resistance of the environment is not important, because thrust has been created before resistance even becomes relevant.
Thermal energy can be part of the process, but a rocket would function as well, if no heat (thermal energy) was produced.
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster)

It is a simple process and thrust has been shown by experiment and observation to be inversely proportional to the area over which the force acts.

Please provide an example of these experiments - I'm not sure what you're trying to convey.
I sounds like you're mixing up pressure and thrust?

Your claim that Joules law doesn't apply to rockets is claptrap as all physical laws apply as shown by all "rocket in a vacuum "video experiments  which are really "bomb in a vacuum" vids .

My claim is properly supported by logical deduction. Starting with the fact, that the requirements for Joule's Law are not met by rockets.
Joule's Law requires a closed volume and a constant amount of gas to be apllied correctly - as there is no closed volume (rockets are an open volume => exhaust) and the amount of gas increases (chemical reaction produces additional gas), it does not apply.
=> The videos, that have been posted in this discussion, do not demonstrate Joule's Law.

You could research and show me the definitive experiment that shows a rocket engine working in a vacuum along with the complete physical description but that doesn't exist -

I have already provided a quite detailed description of the physical (and chemical) process.
Thrust is an application of Newton's Laws, which as been proven (as even you confirm).
If you want to dispute Newton's Laws, it is up to you to provide prove to rebut them.

if it did the joules law wouldn't be a law .

Joule's Law would still be a law and completely unconcerned, as it doesn't apply in the first place.


iC

70

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: March 03, 2020, 05:48:13 PM »

Watch this video guys!

I did it ... I actually endured 5 min of some bloke - a travelling salesman none the less - proudly telling everyone, that he can't really explain, prove or even guess how anything about a flat earth could work.

Closing statement: If the earth were round, we (he?) would be insignificant - so it needs to be flat, so "we're it".

To me it would seem quite the other way round.
Being "bottled up" in an enclosed system would make us insignificant, if only by precluding any chance of "going beyond" in any way.

It's actually quite ironic.
Conspiracy theories claim that RE is (amongst other things) a lie to keep people under control and "within their limits" (i.e. keeping the south pole off limits), when it actually encourages crossing borders and "going beyond", both physically and mentally.
On the other hand, the FE idea does limit people physically (wall, dome, ...) and mentally (there is nothing to go to anyway).

wajeehleo, what was your point in linking this video?

iC

71

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

« on: March 01, 2020, 07:23:39 PM »

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.

which includes Joules law , how a force and hence the reactive force of thrust is produced in a vacuum when that law of Joules shows that no work is done in a vacuum .

No, it does not.
I have explained several times, at length, why Joule's Law does not apply.
Joule's Law applies to a specific situation in thermodynamics. It does not apply to the kinetics that make rockets work.

Take us through the logical steps and stop with the sophistry

Pardon my asking, but do you read my posts at all?
I've led you through the logical steps several times.
I have offered to discuss them, answer any questions and clarify any ambiguity or possible misunderstanding.
You, on the other hand, have persistently avoided addressing the presented steps or taking up that offer, while at the same time dodging my questions.

Claiming I would deliberately try to deceive anyone without giving any prove or explanation is just name-calling - sophisticated sounding, but still petty name-calling.

Explain how a reactive force (thrust) is produced when there is no resistance to the free expansion of gas into a vacuum .

The same way - as explained over and over - it is produced, when there is resistance in an atmosphere (or in any other environment).
Thrust is produced (in short) by the chemical reaction of burning fuel; this is completely independent of the environment.
The force and reactive force are between the rocket and the gas (produced by the chemical reaction); where the gas "goes to", vacuum or atmosphere, doesn't really matter.

iC

72

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

« on: March 01, 2020, 11:14:52 AM »

Newtons first second and third laws .

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.

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.

 

You do not understand the principles behind these laws - these laws are not open to debate .

As repeatedly state, I do not question those laws.
Despite your constant (and unproven) claim to the contrary, however, I do understand the principles behind those laws.
That is why I feel the need to comment on your faulty application of these laws, which lead you to wrong conclusions.

They dictate the inability of a rocket engine to produce any force in a vacuum .

See above. They do not, quite the opposite.

All amply demonstrated in the videos where experimenters cannot even ignite rocket fuel in a vacuum .

The problem of igniting the fuel is a separate (chemical) one and the videos have shown, that it is possible.
The videos have also shown, that rockets work in a near vacuum. They would also show them working in a total vacuum.
That's hard to do in an experiment, luckily satellites in orbit (controlling their orbit with thrusters) prove that what Newton's Law describes is also working in reality.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between a rocket engine and a bomb.

For the sake of "starting a chemical reaction in a vacuum" I think it really doesn't matter that much.
Blocking the exhaust temporarily as in the videos does not turn a rocket into a bomb.
If you'd really block the exhaust, e.g. welding it shut, that would likely turn it into a bomb.
So again ... it is you who is unable to correctly apply definitions.

You have however , excelled in your sophistry.

Thank you for the compliment, but I cannot accept it. While my reasoning is skillful, it is not deceptive.
Unfortunately I can't return it either. While your reasoning appears deceptive, it does not appear skillful to me.

iC
(Edited for typos and some phrasing.)

73

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: February 29, 2020, 09:03:45 PM »

This photograph has been undisputed since its presentation in a Fort Worth chat forum in June of '09.

Why would it be disputed (from a FE/RE point of view)?
It's a panoramic shot in an architecture forum.
If anything would be discussed it would likely be details of buildings, where it was taken from (actually a point of the linked discussion), which type camera was used ...

It is a photo of Dallas and Fort Worth in the same shot...30 miles apart....on the same FLAT plane.

Given that the difference in elevation is over 200 ft. (Dallas approx. 430 ft, Fort Worth approx. 650 ft, elevation of camera unknown), how is this a flat plane?
Obviously in a relatively small area, local features of terrain are more significant then "global" (FE or RE) characteristics.
As pointed out by others, 30 miles isn't a large distance compared to the size of the world.

Anybody care to dispute, or disprove, the photo?

Let me point you to the TFES FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#There_are_many_pictures_on_the_Internet_and_in_other_media_depicting_the_Earth_as_being_round._Why_do_these_not_disprove_the_Flat_Earth_Theory.3F
It points out that - for several reasons - TFES "do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."
Also, I know some professional photographers and it's really amazing what different effects/impressions they can create by means of perspective, choice of lens, settings (aperture, shutter speed, ...), filters, ...

This pictures may very well be authentic ... but by itself, it doesn't prove or dispute anything.
Based on this photograph I wouldn't decide either way.

iC

74

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

« on: February 27, 2020, 05:20:31 PM »

It is clear that rocket engines cannot work in a vacuum or even a low pressure environment .

No, it is not clear - that is why we are discussing it instead of agreeing with one another

Mr Cody's trying to achieve ignition of rocket fuel in his vacuum chamber experiment raised the pressure by an unspecified amount and still failed .

As already pointed out, he did not fail and he explains why there were issues and that they were explicitly not because rocket engines cannot work in a vacuum.
His conclusion is the exact opposite, at 7:17 he states "rocket motors can produce just as much thrust in a vacuum if not a little more".

Him being an intelligent diligent researcher would have done this I believe . Perhaps he could share this info if so .

So as you accept Cody as an intelligent diligent researcher, do you accept the result of his research, that "Rockets do work in a vacuum"?

No amount of waffle can hide the fact that rockets obey the predictions of the laws of physics and as such fail to function under vacuum/low pressure conditions .

As I have provided detailed logical deduction based on the laws of physics and chemistry, I guess the "waffling" is not directed at me.
However, you keep dodging my questions and and deflecting to videos that don't even show/tell what you claim to see in them.
No amount of you ignoring counterarguments, reasonable doubt and repeating unsupported claims will make those faulty claims less faulty.

As to you everything is clear - which law of physics predicts that rockets can't work in a vacuum?
And which law of chemistry predicts, that a chemical reaction will not take place in a vacuum?

iC

75

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

« on: February 26, 2020, 09:25:33 PM »

Secondly, if there is no true vacuum in these videos (wich is true, but irrelevant), this cannot show that rockets will not work in a vacuum as there is no vacuum to show it in.
It simply shows that they are working in a near vacuum.
Which does give some indication, that they will work in a true vacuum as well.

So, you too, admit there is no vacuum in these videos.

I never said there was a vacuum in those videos. (If I wrote something giving that impression, please point me to it, so I can clarify.)
I know it is sometimes hard to keep track with several people cross-posting, but I am the guy who tries to stick with facts, deduction, logic and common sense; my line of reasoning is neither based on nor dependent on videos .
I do comment on videos when I get pulled into a video discussion.

True vacuum is pretty hard to create and I wouldn't expect it in some enthusiast experiment as referenced in this thread.
So, admittedly, I should have written "which is probably true" as I do not have any first hand information to be sure.
Doesn't, however, change the point made:
If there is no vacuum in those videos they do not prove anything in regards to what happens (or doesn't happen) in a vacuum.

The mental reservation and equivocation exhibited in your writing today is quite astounding.

This is actually turning into a entertaining discussion ... somerled resorts to derogatives when running out of arguments, you obviously go the other way pulling out the fancy words?

I have openly stated facts and deducted conclusions in a logically sound manner - openly explaining my line of thought in detail.
Please point out where you suspect "mental reservation".

I try to phrase my posts as unambiguously and concise as possible. I do not always fully meet that goal, but I'll happily disambiguate if need be.
So where do you see any equivocation?

Once again:
If you make a claim, please support it in an appropriate way, so the reader (me or whoever) does not have to second-guess you (you wouldn't want to create the impression of mental reservation, would you?) and can respond without having to ask for clarification.

Finally, as always:
Do you have any sound explanation why Joule expansion, which explicitly requires thermal insulation (to prevent a change of temperature of the gas) could apply to rockets, where the chemical reaction creates a drastic increase in temperature.
(Note: This is, as repeatedly stated, only one of the requirements, that are not met.)

iC

76

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

« on: February 26, 2020, 07:29:01 PM »

He demonstrates Joules law , not carries out his experiment.

As per your own request for scientific definitions, Joule's law has defined scientific requirements to be applicable.
To demonstrate Joule's law he would have to have a setup, that complies with the the requirements of Joule's law.
One of these requirements is a fixed amount of gas - that requirement is not met, so whatever he demonstrates, it's not Joule's law.

Word salad iCare.

Coming back your own request for scientific definitions: Using derogatives - especially without substantiating facts or reasoning - is not scientific, it's pathetic.

Same guy , realises he's proved rocket engines won't work in a vacuum so sets about attempting to prove they do - after several attempts gives up and seals his rocket exhaust in air pressure turning it into a bomb .

At 05:20 he says "This is not designed to work in a vacuum but at sea level".
If you keep listening he will explain why, which does comply to my previous line of argument and does make sense.
So if you want to use this video as proof, it proves my case not yours.
 
There is no need to use highly specialized (much more powerful and likely dangerous for home use) rocket fuel for rockets not intended to be used in a vacuum.
Also, he doesn't turn it into a bomb. It does not explode, it works as a rocket should.
The seal really just aids the reaction along while it's still starting up until it becomes self-sustaining.
Similar to old "times" when you needed a manually operated choke valve to start a cold engine.

Hard to bear when science shows rockets do not work in a vacuum.

I couldn't say, as it doesn't. Quite the opposite.

iC

77

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

« on: February 26, 2020, 05:34:44 PM »

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 "key requirements for free expansion are not met.
Ball's in your court ...

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

Let me reiterate: The  key requirements for free expansion are not met" by these experiemts.
They do not repaet the Joule's experiment.
Joule's experiment begins with gas under some pressure P at some temperature T, confined to one half of a thermally isolated container ..."
In those videos (and in rocket engines) there no thermally isolated container with gas being confined to one half.
=> Joule expansion does not apply in this case.

My rebuttal stands totally unimpressed and unharmed by these videos.

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.

First of all, by his own words, AATW does not disagree with me, so please do not make such assumptions or insinuate he has changed his mind when he hasn't.

Secondly, if there is no true vacuum in these videos (wich is true, but irrelevant), this cannot show that rockets will not work in a vacuum as there is no vacuum to show it in.
It simply shows that they are working in a near vacuum.
Which does give some indication, that they will work in a true vacuum as well.

iC

78

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

« on: February 26, 2020, 05:11:36 PM »

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

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

The first four steps apply to how a rocket engine works in any environment.
See my other post.   

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 .

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

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 .

This is where my logic is spot on.
Gas (which has a mass greater than 0) accelerates out of the rocket. That can be easily be observed; if it wouldn't accelerate, it would stay in the rocket.
Hence another mass (the rocket) needs to accelerate in the opposite direction.

No resistance is needed, it is simply action-reaction.

For the n-th time:
Joule's law does not apply.
Joule's law also does not say, that there are no forces. It states that no work is done, int the sense that the energy contained in the gas does not change.
Either provide a valid reason why Joule's law would apply in the case of rockets or accept that it doesn't.

iC

79

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

« on: February 26, 2020, 04:51:21 PM »

Once he completes his experiments it's quite a revelation that he mentions the fire triangle , was it iCare  that brought that up? He concludes that it should be a fire square , the fourth requirement being pressure .

It's quite fascinating how you keep asking for precise scientific logic, when faced with a rebuttal.
While on the other hand you accept any superficial line of argument at face value when it suits yourself.

I brought up the fire triangle and that stands unrebutted.
"Pressure" is not required, but obviously all three aspects of the triangle need to be combined (pressure helps with that, but is not required).
Usually that is not a problem, but in low enough pressure - especially wenn trying to ignite something by heating the surface -

• the oxygen provided by the oxygen will obviously move away from the fuel/oxidizer => it's not available for sustaining the reaction.
• the heat generated will - at last partially - be directed away from the fuel => it's not available for sustaining the reaction

This is also in line with my previous "educated guess" (guess, because I don't know the exact setup of the experiment, not because I have doubts about the science involved):

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 "focusing the heat" would have worked just as well if done in a vacuum.   

If you had paid more attention, you might have noticed, that Cody himself points out that "it was difficult, but not impossible" to start a chemical reaction in a vacuum.
And this is with regular materials; with specialized rocket fuel it is far easier. It is designed so all three aspects of the fire triangle will "stay together".

On top of this, pressure does not preclude a vacuum. "Press" any material against the rocket fuel ... there's pressure, no atmosphere needed.

So your interpretation of the video is not only wrong one way, but actually two ways.

To be fair to Cody , like all of us , I don't think we are told of Joules experiment at school , college or university ( I certainly wasn't ) and here he is confirming that law of free gas expansion into a vacuum, It's a fine experiment carried out without any tricks. Please watch

I watched and it has absolutely nothing to do with Joule's experiment .

And I stand corrected ... your interpretation of the video is wrong three ways.

iC

80

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

« 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