The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: J-Man on December 31, 2019, 10:06:00 PM

Title: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on December 31, 2019, 10:06:00 PM
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

https://www.rt.com/usa/410360-moon-landing-new-conspiracy/
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 01, 2020, 11:00:25 AM
Seriously? That’s it?

This fuzzy image is “proof”, is it?

(https://i.ibb.co/mcv3b2f/8-DC7-DA0-B-D0-C6-43-C5-8-EFF-A0-D9-FACCA5-BF.jpg)

I guess you’ll see whatever suits your agenda, but spoiler: it’s the other astronaut.

Google the “face on Mars” pictures where a fuzzy picture which looked like a face was thought to be evidence of civilisations on Mars, newer better resolution pictures of the same place on Mars show it’s just a rock formation.

This is ludicrous confirmation bias, it’s a fuzzy spec on an image. To say it’s “clearly” a stagehand or someone not in a spacesuit, given the resolution and lack of clarity is nonsense.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on January 02, 2020, 06:45:04 PM
How silly are the moon landing claims? Pretty dense.... in 1954 the 4 minute mile was broken by a Brit, since that time over 1400 runners have successfully cracked it with the new landmark of 3:43:13. Unlike the foolish that believe, oh yeah, we could go back (NOT) Satanic HOAX !!! The moon is not a sphere, its GODS artwork to blast us with a night light. This is why it never rotates, not even a little !  Wake up....
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: JoeProKill2000 on January 02, 2020, 08:00:36 PM
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

https://www.rt.com/usa/410360-moon-landing-new-conspiracy/
These astronauts risked their lives getting to the moon and you are going to brush it off saying it’s fake over this crappy proof? Get some real proof and then maybe I’ll believe you.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on January 02, 2020, 09:39:25 PM
I'm not sure what risking ones life has to do with anything?  Here's an excerpt from real people risking lives:

"They started off by saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Ten minutes later, they were reading the text of a resolution claiming the existence of “overwhelming evidence” that “pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.”"

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/540-new-york-area-fire-commissioners-make-history-call-for-new-9-11-investigation

It happens that you're a lost soul as we the few who aren't know the gates are very narrow. Satan is the deceiver and he gets a lot but the firemen of the World Trade Center WOKE UP !!! God Bless them.....
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on January 02, 2020, 09:51:20 PM
Seriously? That’s it?

This fuzzy image is “proof”, is it?

(https://i.ibb.co/mcv3b2f/8-DC7-DA0-B-D0-C6-43-C5-8-EFF-A0-D9-FACCA5-BF.jpg)

I guess you’ll see whatever suits your agenda, but spoiler: it’s the other astronaut.

Google the “face on Mars” pictures where a fuzzy picture which looked like a face was thought to be evidence of civilisations on Mars, newer better resolution pictures of the same place on Mars show it’s just a rock formation.

This is ludicrous confirmation bias, it’s a fuzzy spec on an image. To say it’s “clearly” a stagehand or someone not in a spacesuit, given the resolution and lack of clarity is nonsense.

Looks like a stage hand, could you make it any grainier? BTW where's the tripod that took the picture, I don't see it in the helmet reflection? How many people were on the set?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 02, 2020, 10:57:12 PM
I didn't "make it" grainier, that's literally a screenshot from your own article.
And they didn't use tripods, they used chest-mounted cameras, if you don't even know that then it shows how little research you've actually done into this before declaring it all fake without basis.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on January 03, 2020, 01:29:14 AM
http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/apollocams.htm

Tell Satan I eat his minions for lunch treats mark .20 seconds



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhEKxtzRbVo
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 03, 2020, 07:42:47 AM
*sigh*

Yes, they did have some cameras on tripods for taking wide pictures of the scene and for film of the lander taking off from the moon’s surface. For taking pictures of each other, like in the example from the original post, they used chest mounted ones.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: WildBill on February 01, 2020, 03:35:03 PM
Common sense says we didn't go to the moon in a craft powered by a computer that was less powerful than a modern calculator. And then that we or anyone else has not returned... in 50 years? Wtf?

But... this face mask image doesnt look like the big discovery the author hoped. It looks like a blurry image of something humanoid.

Don't see any concrete proof here.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 03, 2020, 10:34:30 PM
I think you’re confusing common sense with personal incredulity. I don’t know how one would apply common sense to space exploration which is anything but common.

I’d encourage you to read “A Man On The Moon” by Andrew Chaikin, an extremely well researched and detailed account of the Apollo missions.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 04, 2020, 10:36:33 AM
I don’t know how one would apply common sense to space exploration which is anything but common.
Sometimes, you get so close to figuring it out. Just brushing against the epiphany, and then steering right back into blind belief...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 04, 2020, 10:43:02 AM
I don’t know how one would apply common sense to space exploration which is anything but common.
Sometimes, you get so close to figuring it out. Just brushing against the epiphany, and then steering right back into blind belief...
Nice straw man, but it's not blind belief.
As I've said numerous times, I've seen a Shuttle launch.
I've seen no evidence from anyone on here that they secretly go and land somewhere.
What is your belief on the Shuttle programme and rockets in general and what is it based on?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 04, 2020, 12:16:30 PM
I don’t know how one would apply common sense to space exploration which is anything but common.
Sometimes, you get so close to figuring it out. Just brushing against the epiphany, and then steering right back into blind belief...
Nice straw man, but it's not blind belief.
As I've said numerous times, I've seen a Shuttle launch.
I've seen no evidence from anyone on here that they secretly go and land somewhere.
What is your belief on the Shuttle programme and rockets in general and what is it based on?
I believe rockets are launched.

I also believe they do come down.

I don't believe it is possible for rockets to operate in a vacuum.

I believe this has been demonstrated numerous times in plain view.

I believe it has been demonstrated the space shuttle has plain jet engines on when landing.

Videos have captured the noise.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 04, 2020, 02:39:39 PM
I believe rockets are launched.
OK. I mean, this isn't really a matter of belief. There's a loads of film and witnesses to rocket launches and if you prefer personal observation you can go and watch one if you happen to be in the right place at the right time. I was lucky enough to be once.

Quote
I also belief they do come down.

What is that belief based on? Do you have any evidence?

Quote
I don't believe it is possible for rockets to operate in a vacuum.

Again, this isn't really a matter of belief. The laws of physics tell us it will and if you don't believe that then you can do your own experiment. I posted a video of one. You made some excuses about him tapping the gauge but that was a diversionary tactic. The experiment result was clear enough.
You seem to understand a bit about cognitive dissonance but don't recognise it in yourself when you're shown an experiment which challenges your beliefs.

Quote
I believe this has been demonstrated numerous times in plain view.

Can you provide an example?

Quote
I believe it has been demonstrated the space shuttle has plain jet engines on when landing.
Videos have captured the noise.

The Shuttle certainly makes a noise when landing but engines are not the only reason something flying through the air at high speed would make noise. As for using jet engines, I had a look at a video of one landing. The only engines I see are the rockets at the back and one shot showed a back view and they didn't seem to be functioning. If they did though, what of it? What in your mind would that demonstrate, that it flew from somewhere maybe? Do you have any evidence for that? The Shuttle clearly doesn't have engines on the wings. Where does the shuttle land and stay while the astronauts are said to be in space? Where's the evidence for it doing that at all?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 04, 2020, 04:27:54 PM
I believe rockets are launched.
OK. I mean, this isn't really a matter of belief. There's a loads of film and witnesses to rocket launches and if you prefer personal observation you can go and watch one if you happen to be in the right place at the right time. I was lucky enough to be once.
Of course it's a matter of belief.

Truth is a matter of belief.

I have launched a rocket or two.
Quote
I also belief they do come down.

What is that belief based on? Do you have any evidence?
Yes, the rockets I launched came down.

I have no reason to believe other persons', having also launched rockets, have not also seen those come down.

Quote
I don't believe it is possible for rockets to operate in a vacuum.

Again, this isn't really a matter of belief. The laws of physics tell us it will and if you don't believe that then you can do your own experiment. I posted a video of one. You made some excuses about him tapping the gauge but that was a diversionary tactic. The experiment result was clear enough.
You seem to understand a bit about cognitive dissonance but don't recognise it in yourself when you're shown an experiment which challenges your beliefs.
Truth of matters are a matter of belief.

It has been demonstrated numerous times by video that rockets energized in a vacuum chamber do not operate.

You need to read up on Free Expansion of gasses in a vacuum.

Quote
I believe this has been demonstrated numerous times in plain view.

Can you provide an example?
See above.

Quote
I believe it has been demonstrated the space shuttle has plain jet engines on when landing.
Videos have captured the noise.

The Shuttle certainly makes a noise when landing but engines are not the only reason something flying through the air at high speed would make noise. As for using jet engines, I had a look at a video of one landing. The only engines I see are the rockets at the back and one shot showed a back view and they didn't seem to be functioning. If they did though, what of it? What in your mind would that demonstrate, that it flew from somewhere maybe? Do you have any evidence for that? The Shuttle clearly doesn't have engines on the wings. Where does the shuttle land and stay while the astronauts are said to be in space? Where's the evidence for it doing that at all?
You obviously miss the intakes for the jet engines located at the rear near the tail of the shuttle.

The only thing that makes a noise like a jet landing is...a jet landing.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 05, 2020, 12:44:31 PM
Of course it's a matter of belief.
Truth is a matter of belief.

It really isn't.
You believe the earth is flat. I believe it is a globe (fine, oblate spheroid, let's not nit-pick).
There are only two possibilities here, either one of us is wrong or both of us are (it could be a third shape).
We cannot both be correct because the shape of the earth is what it is, regardless of your or my or anyone else's belief.
Truth like that is objective and completely separate from what anyone believes.

Quote
Yes, the rockets I launched came down.

I see. That's it, is it?
So because you personally don't have access to rockets which are able to achieve escape velocity that means no-one does and it's not possible?
So my car does not go as fast as 200mph, I don't believe any of my friends has a car which goes that fast.
Ergo, no car can go that fast.
Is that valid logic?

Quote
It has been demonstrated numerous times by video that rockets energized in a vacuum chamber do not operate.

I asked you to provide an example, not just state something without evidence.
I have provided the evidence for my case. Your turn.


Quote
You obviously miss the intakes for the jet engines located at the rear near the tail of the shuttle.

Or are you doing the reverse? Can you provide some evidence that the shuttle has jet engines? You are asserting that the noise is that of jet engines, there's plenty of photos and video of shuttle landings, can you find some which clearly shows (not just from the audio) that it has jet engines working as it lands? And even if that was true, so what? Do you have any evidence that the Shuttle can take off like a plane does? I note you have provided no evidence for any of your assertions about the Shuttle.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 03:50:48 PM
Of course it's a matter of belief.
Truth is a matter of belief.

It really isn't.
You believe the earth is flat. I believe it is a globe (fine, oblate spheroid, let's not nit-pick).
There are only two possibilities here, either one of us is wrong or both of us are (it could be a third shape).
We cannot both be correct because the shape of the earth is what it is, regardless of your or my or anyone else's belief.
Truth like that is objective and completely separate from what anyone believes.
Since we have a disagreement about said shape of the earth, the truth of it remains a matter of belief.
Quote
Yes, the rockets I launched came down.

I see. That's it, is it?
Primarily.
So because you personally don't have access to rockets which are able to achieve escape velocity that means no-one does and it's not possible?
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."

There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Having written that, I am unaware of any rockets failing to return to the earth.
So my car does not go as fast as 200mph, I don't believe any of my friends has a car which goes that fast.
Ergo, no car can go that fast.
Is that valid logic?
No it isn't and it is good I am not exercising that type of logic.
Quote
It has been demonstrated numerous times by video that rockets energized in a vacuum chamber do not operate.

I asked you to provide an example, not just state something without evidence.
I have provided the evidence for my case. Your turn.
You actually presented evidence supporting my position.

The little funny gauge tapping video demonstrates faulty equipment and there are numerous other videos posted by others here in this forum demonstrating the failure of rocket engines in a vacuum.

Free expansion dictates that gas vented into a vacuum performs ZERO work.

Quote
You obviously miss the intakes for the jet engines located at the rear near the tail of the shuttle.

Or are you doing the reverse? Can you provide some evidence that the shuttle has jet engines? You are asserting that the noise is that of jet engines, there's plenty of photos and video of shuttle landings, can you find some which clearly shows (not just from the audio) that it has jet engines working as it lands? And even if that was true, so what? Do you have any evidence that the Shuttle can take off like a plane does? I note you have provided no evidence for any of your assertions about the Shuttle.
(https://cdn.britannica.com/91/72291-004-BAE955B3/space-shuttle-Endeavour-landing-Edwards-Air-Force-May-2000.jpg)
See the bulbous areas by the tail?

Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

Why would you expect to see jet engines working in a video?

What does that even mean?

When I see a video (with accompanying audio) of a jet landing, I hear the jet engines working.

The shuttle videos I have seen offer the same exact sound...

The shuttle did go to great heights above the earth when operational. Never denied that. 

You asked where did the shuttle land?

Where has it landed?

Regular airstrips and even dry lake beds, if I recall correctly.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 07, 2020, 03:14:23 AM
So because you personally don't have access to rockets which are able to achieve escape velocity that means no-one does and it's not possible?
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."

There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Says who? Citation requested.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:25:46 PM
So because you personally don't have access to rockets which are able to achieve escape velocity that means no-one does and it's not possible?
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."

There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Says who? Citation requested.
Says me.

The fastest speed any craft carrying a man that has been visually observed to travel was, is, and remains the ISS.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 07, 2020, 03:02:12 PM
Since we have a disagreement about said shape of the earth, the truth of it remains a matter of belief.

No, it doesn't. The earth's shape is what it is.
We might have different beliefs about what that is, but the truth exists independently of that and is unaffected by your belief, or mine.

Quote
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."
There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Well, there's no escape velocity in your FE model, but you understand that the faster you throw something upwards, the higher it goes and the longer it takes to come down again. In the RE model where the earth is a globe with a gravitational field, there is a velocity at which something won't come down again. Do you have any evidence that we have no craft capable of escaping earth's gravity, or are you just arguing from incredulity?
For the record, the space shuttle orbits at just under 5 miles a second. Escape velocity is only the speed you'd need to project something from the ground in order that it leaves earth's gravity

Quote
No it isn't and it is good I am not exercising that type of logic.

I genuinely can't see the difference between my "logic" and yours. Your experience of rockets is you launch them and you come down, ergo you conclude that no-one can launch rockets into orbit. It's flawed logic. You don't have the budget NASA does.

Quote
The little funny gauge tapping video demonstrates faulty equipment

No. The gauge is clearly shown in the video to go down as the pump operates to create a vacuum
See point 14 of this paper which explains why someone might tap the a mechanical gauge:
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2203666/Beamex_White_Papers/Beamex%20White%20Paper%20-%20How%20to%20calibrate%20pressure%20gauges%20ENG.pdf

Quote
See the bulbous areas by the tail? Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

They are part of the Reaction Control System. Diagram here:
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p46.htm
More explanation here:
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-rcs.html

They are used to manoeuvre the shuttle when it's in orbit.
And fine, you can't necessarily see if the engines are working when a plane lands. The Shuttle didn't use engines to land, but what would be the significance if it did?

I note, as I'm sure others will, that while I am providing evidence and sources for my assertions, you are just stating yours and when offered the opportunity to provide sources or evidence you refuse to.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 08, 2020, 12:14:17 AM
So because you personally don't have access to rockets which are able to achieve escape velocity that means no-one does and it's not possible?
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."

There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Says who? Citation requested.
Says me.

The fastest speed any craft carrying a man that has been visually observed to travel was, is, and remains the ISS.

"Says me"? Hardly a citation.

As well, what is your citation for the "The fastest speed any craft carrying a man..." Citation required.

Is this your thing: You just say stuff without any corroborating evidence, (or evidence at all) just to say stuff?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on February 08, 2020, 03:02:44 AM
He's pure hyperbole....

50 years we haven't gone back, why? We never went and today it would be impossible to pull the sham off. Kinda like the fake chemical attacks in Syria. All bulshi !!!
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 08, 2020, 05:28:44 AM
He's pure hyperbole....

50 years we haven't gone back, why? We never went and today it would be impossible to pull the sham off. Kinda like the fake chemical attacks in Syria. All bulshi !!!

Yep, pure hyperbole...On your part. Without evidence, as usual. How about a little evidence instead of hyperbole. It would be nice for a change.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 08:23:06 AM
50 years we haven't gone back, why?

... because the only manned program (Apollo) was cancelled in 1972, and no other Space Agency or Govt has been inclined to put up either the money or the effort to do so.

Plenty of unmanned missions since 1972. Don't they count?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 08:26:50 AM
Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

... yet every illustration and schematic shows them to house the orbital reaction control system. And there's no air intakes.

I seem to recall when the shuttles came into land, they had Air Force jets flying in parallel with them, presumably for tracking and/or observation purposes.

Perhaps those are what you hear on the videos ....?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2020, 08:30:53 AM
Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

... yet every illustration and schematic shows them to house the orbital reaction control system. And there's no air intakes.

I seem to recall when the shuttles came into land, they had Air Force jets flying in parallel with them, presumably for tracking and/or observation purposes.

Perhaps those are what you hear on the videos ....?
Well, that might be a good explanation if you saw the jets accompanying the shuttle also landing, but they don't.

Those jets continue flying and do not land on the same airstrip.

Plus, you distinctly hear the sound of the jet engines winding down and then shutting off as the shuttle rolls to  a total stop.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 08:42:09 AM
Well, that might be a good explanation if you saw the jets accompanying the shuttle also landing, but they don't.

Those jets continue flying and do not land on the same airstrip.

Plus, you distinctly hear the sound of the jet engines winding down and then shutting off as the shuttle rolls to  a total stop.

Well, I seem to recall them BECAUSE I saw them, probably in a news report on TV, rather than a video.

Which videos have the sound you refer to?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2020, 08:53:47 AM
Well, that might be a good explanation if you saw the jets accompanying the shuttle also landing, but they don't.

Those jets continue flying and do not land on the same airstrip.

Plus, you distinctly hear the sound of the jet engines winding down and then shutting off as the shuttle rolls to  a total stop.

Well, I seem to recall them BECAUSE I saw them, probably in a news report on TV, rather than a video.

Which videos have the sound you refer to?
I am not denying the jets.

They were typically T-38's.

I know there is video posted here or the other site.

I will try to find it...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2020, 09:07:17 AM
Some of the noise can be heard here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watch?v=sXxRfujx7lw&t=10s

This isn't the one I recall posted here, so I will continue my search.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 09:22:37 AM
There are illustrations, photos, videos all over the interwebs of the shuttle pilot control panel(s).

Are there any which show controls for these jet engines? In an absence of controls, how would they be operated?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2020, 09:48:06 AM
There are illustrations, photos, videos all over the interwebs of the shuttle pilot control panel(s).

Are there any which show controls for these jet engines? In an absence of controls, how would they be operated?
Is your issue that these photos would need to depict the exact same layout as a jet in order to qualify as a jet control?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 11:05:58 AM
Is your issue that these photos would need to depict the exact same layout as a jet in order to qualify as a jet control?

If you can't identify something with which the pilot would control them, then you're in the position of having to show that they were  - A - disguised as other controls, B - hidden on another control panel which has never been  photographed, or C - totally automated.

There's also the issue of a total absence of exhaust product from these "jet" engines ...

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2020, 11:12:04 AM
Is your issue that these photos would need to depict the exact same layout as a jet in order to qualify as a jet control?

If you can't identify something with which the pilot would control them, then you're in the position of having to show that they were  - A - disguised as other controls, B - hidden on another control panel which has never been  photographed, or C - totally automated.

There's also the issue of a total absence of exhaust product from these "jet" engines ...
Actually I would not need to show anything of the sort.

The presence of the exact same sounds is enough.

How many videos show the presence of jet exhaust from jets when they are landing?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 12:26:29 PM
How many videos show the presence of jet exhaust from jets when they are landing?

I can't say precisely how many, but here's a few;

Note when the engines cross the top of the tree line;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nZd0--Y1e8

At 0.05, 0.58, when the engines cross the tree line, at 1.50, and so on ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fGQL7rBH8Q
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 08, 2020, 01:25:00 PM
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k70hn4-ffc
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 08, 2020, 05:50:09 PM
lackey is derailing this thread with the thing about the Space Shuttle having jet engines.
I mean, it didn't, but even if it did, so what? What would be the significance?
All he has done in this thread is make vague assertions and provided no evidence for any of them.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 09, 2020, 04:08:07 AM
lackey is derailing this thread with the thing about the Space Shuttle having jet engines.
I mean, it didn't, but even if it did, so what? What would be the significance?
All he has done in this thread is make vague assertions and provided no evidence for any of them.
You brought the issue of the space shuttle up.

Then want to blame me?

Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.

Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on February 09, 2020, 04:25:05 AM
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k70hn4-ffc

At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 09, 2020, 04:58:51 AM
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k70hn4-ffc

At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

I'm not sure I understand what your point is. That the shuttle was going 370 mph and then landed at a slower speed? And that is somehow fake and evidence of what? Please explain.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 09, 2020, 11:10:26 AM
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k70hn4-ffc
How many videos show the presence of jet exhaust from jets when they are landing?

I can't say precisely how many, but here's a few;

Note when the engines cross the top of the tree line;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nZd0--Y1e8

At 0.05, 0.58, when the engines cross the tree line, at 1.50, and so on ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fGQL7rBH8Q
Well, a couple of things...

First, there is a distinct contrast (courtesy of the surroundings) provided in the 747 shots, not typically available during shuttle landings and the engines on a 747 are much larger.

I will still look for that particular shuttle video though, because there is no doubt  it makes the same sound as a jet landing, complete with engine wind down and shut off.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 09, 2020, 11:37:26 AM
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 09, 2020, 02:51:59 PM
The last one was STS-135;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDG5sNMX2M

Note the infra-red imagery at 13m30s or so. White = hot. The tyres, the underside. Do those "jet engines" look hot?

I'm finding them with youtube searches for "STS-nnn landing" where nnn is the mission number, 001 thru 135. Where are you looking?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on February 10, 2020, 02:10:43 AM
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.

Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 10, 2020, 07:07:45 AM
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.

Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.

Apparently jet engines are not required. Here's a worthwhile video on how the shuttle landed from space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4prVsXkZU

Here's a written explanation with some supporting official documentation:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21981/how-does-the-space-shuttle-slow-down-during-re-entry-descent-and-landing

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 10, 2020, 09:51:15 AM
Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.

"When it has actually landed it has a parachute that slows it down, as well as normal wheel brakes, that help slow it down. The engines are nor working during landing, so there is no reverse thrust."

From the link quoted above.

The max landing weight of a 747 is 312,000 Kilograms. Empty shuttle 75,000 or so.  Quarter of the weight, needs one quarter of the effort to stop.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 10, 2020, 09:57:14 AM
You brought the issue of the space shuttle up.
Then want to blame me?
I mentioned it in response to Pete's assertion that my beliefs in this area are blind. They are not, I have literally seen a space shuttle launch.
I didn't mean it to get into some protracted discussion about whether it has jet engines.
It doesn't, and you have provided no evidence other than vague assertions that you hear something which you think is a jet engine.
But even if it did, so what?

Quote
Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.

That isn't a fact. It's literally the opposite of a fact. I have posted a video which shows a rocket working in a vacuum.
You've lied about the pressure gauge not working - despite the fact you can clearly see the needle moving in the video.
You've tried to claim the fact he taps the gauge as significant - I have shown you documentation regarding that.
Stop making excuses. Post some actual evidence of your claim

Quote
Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

That actually is a scientific fact (although I'm interested how you guys cherry pick which parts of science you accept as factual).
But that's not how rockets work. Some more explanation here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 10, 2020, 11:07:35 AM


Quote
Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.

That isn't a fact. It's literally the opposite of a fact. I have posted a video which shows a rocket working in a vacuum.
You've lied about the pressure gauge not working - despite the fact you can clearly see the needle moving in the video.
You've tried to claim the fact he taps the gauge as significant - I have shown you documentation regarding that.
Stop making excuses. Post some actual evidence of your claim

Quote
Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

That actually is a scientific fact (although I'm interested how you guys cherry pick which parts of science you accept as factual).
But that's not how rockets work. Some more explanation here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
[/quote]

You admit a scientific fact , which you call " cherry pick". This is real scientific fact gained through observation and explained with the laws of physics . No resistance - no work done = no thrust .

You bluster about proof being a video showing rocket engines working in a vacuum ( after they have been changed into bombs ). Then you post a link to a forum full of waffle - at one point I read that " that doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything " . Where's the real scientific data gained through experiment ? James Joule gave you that. 




You can't add a bucket of Newtons 3rd to provide thrust .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 10, 2020, 12:09:22 PM
You brought the issue of the space shuttle up.
Then want to blame me?
I mentioned it in response to Pete's assertion that my beliefs in this area are blind. They are not, I have literally seen a space shuttle launch.
I didn't mean it to get into some protracted discussion about whether it has jet engines.
It doesn't, and you have provided no evidence other than vague assertions that you hear something which you think is a jet engine.
But even if it did, so what?
Well, I responded.

I didn't derail.
Quote
Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.
That isn't a fact. It's literally the opposite of a fact. I have posted a video which shows a rocket working in a vacuum. You've tried to claim the fact he taps the gauge as significant - I have shown you documentation regarding that. You've lied about the pressure gauge not working - despite the fact you can clearly see the needle moving in the video.
Stop making excuses. Post some actual evidence of your claim.
No, you posted some video about a broken gauge.

If the gauge was indeed working properly, why tap on it?

Answer - it isn't working properly.

Plus, you never did get back to us with a citation regarding the scientifically acceptable tapping technique regarding malfunctioning or inoperable gauges.
Quote
Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

That actually is a scientific fact (although I'm interested how you guys cherry pick which parts of science you accept as factual).
But that's not how rockets work. Some more explanation here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
Your gonna post some internet joker's opinion on some forum blog as evidence?

Please...

You cannot simultaneously claim a gas is released and compressed at the same time within the confines of a vacuum.

That is why your videos offered are useless.

Rockets work because they are able to release the gas in a pressurized environment.

Once they enter an environment without pressure (vacuum), they are just like any other container of gas. Any gas they have in them cannot do any other thing but expand out with no reactionary force.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 10, 2020, 01:11:09 PM
You admit a scientific fact , which you call " cherry pick". This is real scientific fact gained through observation and explained with the laws of physics.

The cherry picking is citing some science in this area but ignoring science that deals with things like, say, gravity which most FE models deny.

Quote
You bluster about proof being a video showing rocket engines working in a vacuum ( after they have been changed into bombs ). Then you post a link to a forum full of waffle
The waffle was to explain the difference between the free expansion lackey is describing and what a rocket does.
The video was clear enough, I note that in lackey's response he has continued to lie about it and at this stage it's clear he's just trolling so I won't bother responding further.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 10, 2020, 01:22:44 PM
You admit a scientific fact , which you call " cherry pick". This is real scientific fact gained through observation and explained with the laws of physics.

The cherry picking is citing some science in this area but ignoring science that deals with things like, say, gravity which most FE models deny.
Gravity is not the subject here.
Quote
You bluster about proof being a video showing rocket engines working in a vacuum ( after they have been changed into bombs ). Then you post a link to a forum full of waffle
The waffle was to explain the difference between the free expansion lackey is describing and what a rocket does.
The video was clear enough, I note that in lackey's response he has continued to lie about it and at this stage it's clear he's just trolling so I won't bother responding further.
It is evident you have no meaningful response.

You posted a video of some guy tapping a malfunctioning gauge, with absolutely nothing resembling anything close to a rocket in operation, boasting, "HEY!!! HERE IS PROOF A ROCKET CAN WORK IN A VACUUM!"

The link you provided was a forum formed of people on the Internet discussing free expansion, stating that could not possibly apply to a rocket in space, and who cannot understand that a pressurized gas container located in a vacuum, when allowed to vent, discharge, or eject its contents into that vacuum, will simply lie there.

Won't move a lick.

If you could somehow first set it in motion and then introduce it to the vacuum environment, it will maintain the momentum that it had on arrival (until some other force acts on it), but any further release of gas could not and would not be that force, because of the science of free expansion.

You can call me a troll if you like, but that statement is shown to have the same amount of substance as the supposed rocket proof video.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on February 10, 2020, 02:53:17 PM
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.

Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.

Apparently jet engines are not required. Here's a worthwhile video on how the shuttle landed from space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4prVsXkZU

Here's a written explanation with some supporting official documentation:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21981/how-does-the-space-shuttle-slow-down-during-re-entry-descent-and-landing
It takes (4) of these behemoths to reverse thrust and slow that sucker. Enjoy !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv5C5I67SNA
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 10, 2020, 03:02:35 PM
Can we turn the discussion the other way, then, since you assert that rockets do not work in vacuum?

The implication seems to be that you assert that rockets DO work with some other gas outside the rocket nozzle. If so, could you tell us how that might work?

Surely the emerging cloud of exhaust product from the engine pushes the other gases away, and once it has done this, they provide no resistance?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 10, 2020, 03:41:32 PM
It takes (4) of these behemoths to reverse thrust and slow that sucker.

It's four times heavier and far, far larger. Inference being it would take less than one of them to stop the shuttle.

No?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 10, 2020, 03:53:12 PM
Can we turn the discussion the other way, then, since you assert that rockets do not work in vacuum?

The implication seems to be that you assert that rockets DO work with some other gas outside the rocket nozzle. If so, could you tell us how that might work?

Surely the emerging cloud of exhaust product from the engine pushes the other gases away, and once it has done this, they provide no resistance?

No , I make no implication or assertion .  Scientific principles only. Joules experiment.
Exhaust flow encounters resistance from (pushes against as you say ) atmospheric pressure , exerts a force - newtons 2nd law  - which causes reactive force of thrust newtons 3rd . No outer pressure then no force or push , so no thrust or reaction.

Rocket engines rely on conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy to provide thrust as outlined. If there is no outer pressure then the thermal energy from the exothermic chemical reaction of the rocket fuel will just escape to vacuum , maybe heat the nozzle a bit.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 10, 2020, 04:20:59 PM
Can we turn the discussion the other way, then, since you assert that rockets do not work in vacuum?
I do not assert this.

I quote scientists stating this as a fact.

The science states, unequivocally: "In free expansion there is no work done as there is no external pressure."
The implication seems to be that you assert that rockets DO work with some other gas outside the rocket nozzle. If so, could you tell us how that might work?
Rockets work in the atmoplane.

The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Please make note there is nothing to displace in a vacuum.
Surely the emerging cloud of exhaust product from the engine pushes the other gases away, and once it has done this, they provide no resistance?
See above.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 10, 2020, 04:30:10 PM
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 10, 2020, 04:39:03 PM
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?
lackey is trying to equate free expansion with a rocket which propels the gas out of the nozzle with explosive force.
It's a false equivalence although as I said I suspect he is trolling now.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html

Quote
It's a common mistake to think that rockets move forward by "pushing back against the air"—and it's easy to see that this is a mistake when you remember that there's no air in space to push against.
Rockets move upward by firing hot exhaust gas downward, rather like jet planes—or blown-up balloons from which you let the (cold) air escape. This is an example of what's often called "action and reaction" (another name for Newton's third law of motion): the hot exhaust gas firing down (the action) creates an equal and opposite force (the reaction) that speeds the rocket up. The action is the force of the gas, the reaction's the force acting on the rocket—and the two forces are of equal size, but pointing in opposite directions, and acting on different things (which is why they don't cancel out).
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 10, 2020, 04:56:51 PM
Exhaust flow encounters resistance from (pushes against as you say ) atmospheric pressure , exerts a force - newtons 2nd law  - which causes reactive force of thrust newtons 3rd . No outer pressure then no force or push , so no thrust or reaction

Again, what happens once the rocket exhaust has pushed the atmosphere away? Where's the reactive force then?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 10, 2020, 05:04:26 PM
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?
Displacement = gasses from the rocket into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane.

Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

Of course the air of the atmoplane is displaced by the rocket gasses being ejected.
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?

lackey is trying to equate free expansion with a rocket which propels the gas out of the nozzle with explosive force.
It's a false equivalence although as I said I suspect he is trolling now.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html

Quote
It's a common mistake to think that rockets move forward by "pushing back against the air"—and it's easy to see that this is a mistake when you remember that there's no air in space to push against.
Rockets move upward by firing hot exhaust gas downward, rather like jet planes—or blown-up balloons from which you let the (cold) air escape. This is an example of what's often called "action and reaction" (another name for Newton's third law of motion): the hot exhaust gas firing down (the action) creates an equal and opposite force (the reaction) that speeds the rocket up. The action is the force of the gas, the reaction's the force acting on the rocket—and the two forces are of equal size, but pointing in opposite directions, and acting on different things (which is why they don't cancel out).
No, I'm not.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 10, 2020, 05:53:03 PM
Displacement = gasses from the rocket into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane.

Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

Of course the air of the atmoplane is displaced by the rocket gasses being ejected.

How can the displaced air affect either the exhaust gases, or the craft from which they are being expelled? Once the air that was adjacent to the nozzle has been pushed (say) 500m away, it's merely being carried along as a passenger by a combination of rocket exhaust and ancillary air currents generated by the exhaust displacing first that air, then further rocket exhaust displacing the first emissions.

It seems to me that;

Displacement = gasses from the rocket    (into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane or into vacuum).
Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

works in both atmosphere and vacuum.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 12:47:04 PM
Displacement = gasses from the rocket into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane.

Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

Of course the air of the atmoplane is displaced by the rocket gasses being ejected.

How can the displaced air affect either the exhaust gases, or the craft from which they are being expelled?

It affects the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.
Once the air that was adjacent to the nozzle has been pushed (say) 500m away, it's merely being carried along as a passenger by a combination of rocket exhaust and ancillary air currents generated by the exhaust displacing first that air, then further rocket exhaust displacing the first emissions.
It is affecting the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.
It seems to me that;

Displacement = gasses from the rocket    (into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane or into vacuum).
Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

works in both atmosphere and vacuum.
2 possible reasons for this are:

A)  you do not understand the science of free expansion, stating that a vacuum holds nothing that can be displaced; or,
B)  you do not understand a rocket is essentially a container of fuel, that once it is launched, is dispensing its fuel contents in the form of a gas, until it runs out of its contents.

Free expansion states gas dispensed into a vacuum ZERO work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 11, 2020, 01:26:21 PM
It isn't "freely expanding." There's a rocket on one side.

The gas doesn’t do work on the vacuum, but it still does work on the rocket. The exhaust gas has mass and is being thrown out with some speed, therefore it has momentum. Since momentum must be conserved, the rocket must accelerate in the opposite direction.

EDIT: Another video of a rocket working in a vacuum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 01:48:32 PM
It isn't "freely expanding." There's a rocket on one side.

The gas doesn’t do work on the vacuum, but it still does work on the rocket.
No, it doesn't.
The exhaust gas has mass
Yes.
... and is being thrown out with some speed...
Once it reaches a vacuum, it is merely in free expansion.
...therefore it has momentum. Since momentum must be conserved, the rocket must accelerate in the opposite direction.
Once gas is released into a vacuum, it freely expands.

EDIT: Another video of a rocket working in a vacuum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4
AATW : "Allow me to post a video of a rocket working in an environment other than a vacuum as evidence that rockets work in a vacuum."

Work done by Free expansion of a gas in a vacuum = 0
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2020, 02:20:37 PM
It is affecting the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.

Where is the displaced air, if not way, way behind the rocket, having been displaced by the exhaust?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJW5yUYiiak

I see air being pushed far away from the rocket. I see air being dragged down from above the engine by this, but that air cannot be provided resistance to the exhaust, since it's coming in from ABOVE the exhaust.

What do you actually see here? Do you see a wall of air, providing something for the rocket to push against?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2020, 04:28:58 PM
It is affecting the rocket. That is why rockets have stabilizers.

Where is the displaced air, if not way, way behind the rocket, having been displaced by the exhaust?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJW5yUYiiak

I see air being pushed far away from the rocket. I see air being dragged down from above the engine by this, but that air cannot be provided resistance to the exhaust, since it's coming in from ABOVE the exhaust.

What do you actually see here? Do you see a wall of air, providing something for the rocket to push against?
I see a rocket operating normally in a pressurized environment.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2020, 05:30:36 PM
I see a rocket operating normally in a pressurized environment.

Do you see air being driven away from the engine, and failing to provide resistance to the rocket exhaust?

Do you see the airflow being dragged from above the engine, and down the side?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 11, 2020, 06:22:52 PM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.



Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2020, 07:22:56 PM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum

Maybe none.

Why would one need to?

Once you know that they work at low, medium and high altitudes, with the corresponding high, medium and low air pressures, the next stage surely is to send one above that high altitude. If the engine works, the craft goes higher, if not, it falls.

Observation tells you what results. In all that I've read on the subject, I've never encountered mention of someone doing this prior to the advent of space flight in the 1950s.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: TomInAustin on February 11, 2020, 07:28:00 PM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.

The fact that there are over 21,000 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbit proves all we need to know.  The fact many are visible with the naked eye is just icing on the cake.

Question...  When Space X puts thousands more visible objects into orbit what will your reaction be when you can't look at the night sky and not see them?

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 11, 2020, 10:12:34 PM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.
Can you find an article by a credible scientist which claims that Joule's free expansion result means that a rocket won't work in a vacuum.
You and lackey are claiming this but you'll find the whole of rocket science disagrees.
The gas propelled out of the rocket has momentum. It has mass, the mass is in motion, that's what momentum is.
Another law of physics is conservation of momentum.
As momentum in one direction is given to the rocket's exhaust gases, momentum in the other direction is given to the rocket.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2020, 10:15:31 PM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

AFIK, nobody did a "repeatable controlled scientific experiment" that Concorde would fly at supersonic speed without falling apart. They made models, ran simulations, then one day a test pilot got into the cockpit and floored it

Likewise with the first jet to go to Mach 1 - Yeager, was it? Again, model it, run the theory, but the only way to test a full-size aircraft at Mach 1 was for a test pilot to get in and give it a go.

All manner of other "discoveries" went the same way.

If I find anything that suggests that "repeatable controlled scientific experiments" were done on rockets in vacuum before heading to space, I'll be the first to let you know.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2020, 10:20:31 PM
Frankly, if the engine could talk, and you asked it "Does it make a difference to you whether there's air under you or not?", I think the engine would reply "I don't give a flying f*** what's back there."

That exhaust is coming out at the back, and if the rocket and engine aren't fastened down, the rocket it's attached to is going in the opposite direction, pronto, regardless of whether there's anything under the engine or not.

I think that's clear from the engine test footage, and the massive amounts of air that are almost casually pushed far, far away, thus failing to provide any resistance to the rocket exhaust.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2020, 04:14:47 AM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

AFIK, nobody did a "repeatable controlled scientific experiment" that Concorde would fly at supersonic speed without falling apart. They made models, ran simulations, then one day a test pilot got into the cockpit and floored it

Likewise with the first jet to go to Mach 1 - Yeager, was it? Again, model it, run the theory, but the only way to test a full-size aircraft at Mach 1 was for a test pilot to get in and give it a go.

"Get in and give it a go".... That's not how supersonic aircraft are designed and tested at all.

Aircraft and aircraft components are tested in wind tunnels, which have existed since before jet engines. The first ones were propeller driven.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 12, 2020, 06:49:33 AM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

If I find anything that suggests that "repeatable controlled scientific experiments" were done on rockets in vacuum before heading to space, I'll be the first to let you know.

I'm sure there's a bunch of data on rocket/vacuum testing that could be dug up from this facility:

(https://i.imgur.com/h6jDXzy.jpg)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
Tumeni  said "They made models, ran simulations[/b], then one day a test pilot got into the cockpit and floored it"

"Get in and give it a go".... That's not how supersonic aircraft are designed and tested at all.

Aircraft and aircraft components are tested in wind tunnels, which have existed since before jet engines. The first ones were propeller driven.

You're actually agreeing with me, Tom. Read what I wrote.

There is no way to scientifically test the actual aircraft at Mach 1 other than building the aircraft and going to Mach 1.  You're actually agreeing with this when you say "Aircraft and aircraft components are tested in wind tunnels". Read what I wrote in the quote.

But at the end of the day, the only way to see how the hardware behaves in flight is to build it and let a test pilot loose on it. You cannot fly it for real in a laboratory. This is true of so many craft and vehicles. It's why ships have sea trials, why car manufacturers have test tracks, etc.

Want to send a rocket up beyond the Karman line? The only sure way to see the full-size craft operating in space is to launch it into space and fire up the engine whilst there. 

Edited to correct quote mishap
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 12, 2020, 10:29:05 AM
Which scientist carried out a repeatable controlled scientific experiment that proves that rocket engines work in a vacuum ?

James Joule provided the scientific experiment which proved otherwise - a law of physics no less.
Can you find an article by a credible scientist which claims that Joule's free expansion result means that a rocket won't work in a vacuum.
You and lackey are claiming this but you'll find the whole of rocket science disagrees.
The gas propelled out of the rocket has momentum. It has mass, the mass is in motion, that's what momentum is.
Another law of physics is conservation of momentum.
As momentum in one direction is given to the rocket's exhaust gases, momentum in the other direction is given to the rocket.

James Joule not credible for you ? hohoho. This law derived from a scientific experiment .

You are unable to find the repeatable controlled experiment that shows that rockets can work in a vacuum . No surprise since there is none . The laws of physics show that .
How is momentum in one direction given to the rockets's exhaust gas ? By magic I suppose . What about Newton's 1st ? You really need to read up on those laws.

If rocket's work in what we are told is a vacuum then Joules law of expansion wouldn't be a law of physics . The fact there is no experiment to show a rocket works in a vacuum shows all you need to know.

A far more creditable debate would be to say that there isn't a vacuum up there hence rockets would work . Or nasa lies . Or maybe those thousands of satellites are much closer to earth. Or gravity is schmavity .Or all of those .




Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 10:42:10 AM
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't.

The SGF in the UK spent five years laser-ranging the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to determine where it was in relation to Moon and Earth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103516303657?via%3Dihub

Were they mistaken?
Were they "in on the hoax"

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 12, 2020, 11:41:04 AM
Amateur observes exit burn which takes SpaceX's Falcon Heavy test payload out of Earth orbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTVDRJ_cRz4

"Could have been .... " is the likely protest from disbelievers.

It happened at exactly the time that SpaceX had predicted in advance, in exactly the right part of the sky and of the world according to the flight plan - what else could it be?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 12, 2020, 01:13:55 PM
James Joule not credible for you ? hohoho. This law derived from a scientific experiment .

James Joule is perfectly credible and I am not disputing the result.
What I dispute is the link you are making between that result and rockets not working in a vacuum. You are claiming this result demonstrates that rockets won’t work in a vacuum, can you provide a credible source which agrees with you.

Quote
You are unable to find the repeatable controlled experiment that shows that rockets can work in a vacuum

I have posted videos of two which show this.

Quote
How is momentum in one direction given to the rockets's exhaust gas ? By magic I suppose.

No, by the combustion which propels it out of the rocket.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 13, 2020, 11:29:46 AM
So far AATW you provide chatroom waffle and silly videos,  - which actually show joules law in action . You dropped all the videos in which the boffins/buffoons were unable to ignite rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in low pressure chambers until the rockets were turned into pressurised bombs  - you rely on the one video in which the buffoon wont reveal his rocket design , cos it's a bomb is my guess. You display a complete lack of understanding  about the laws of physics.

Where is the controlled repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine will work in a vacuum ? That's all you have to show me .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 12:01:21 PM
Where is the controlled repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine will work in a vacuum ? That's all you have to show me .

Why is there an obligation to show this?   Why does the 63-year history of spaceflight not count? The amateur videos that show rocket plumes on orbital craft? Photographers capturing the ISS and other satellites in transit across Moon and Sun? Organisations like the SGF monitoring satellites around Earth and Moon by laser ranging?

I made the point elsewhere that other scientific endeavours can only be tested by the process of making them do their appointed task. You can only prove the full-size ship floats by launching it onto the sea. You can only prove the full-size aircraft goes supersonic by flying it.  You can test medicines for humans in the lab as much as you like, but the only way to "show they work" is by trial on real humans.

The way to see that rockets work in space is to launch and operate them outwith our atmosphere.

By the efforts of early pioneers, and the 63-year history that followed, we know that rockets work in space. The only alternatives are to show that all of this 63-year effort has been faked, or that "space is fake" (a line that is seen far more than it should, especially on YouTube) 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 13, 2020, 12:32:37 PM
I see a rocket operating normally in a pressurized environment.

Do you see air being driven away from the engine, and failing to provide resistance to the rocket exhaust?
You have got to offer more on this statement.

Please inform the readers how the air at 14.7 psi could provide no resistance...
Do you see the airflow being dragged from above the engine, and down the side?
Why wouldn't it?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 12:44:42 PM
You have got to offer more on this statement.

Why? The video of the clouds of smoke, steam, exhaust product and AIR being driven AWAY from the engine at high speed are not self-evident in the video? 

(T - Do you see the airflow being dragged from above the engine, and down the side?)

Why wouldn't it?

What reason is there for it to do this, if the air below is actively resisting the exhaust flow?

Why do YOU think there is airflow from above the engine in such vast quantity, at such speed?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 13, 2020, 01:07:39 PM
You have got to offer more on this statement.

Why?
Because the claim you are making is scientifically impossible.

Air, at 14.7 psi, will provide resistance regardless of the amount of force acting on it.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 13, 2020, 01:12:45 PM
What reason is there for it to do this, if the air below is actively resisting the exhaust flow?

Why do YOU think there is airflow from above the engine in such vast quantity, at such speed?
Why wouldn't air under roof start flowing the same direction as all other air?

I fail to see the mystery you are proposing.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 02:50:52 PM
the claim you are making is scientifically impossible.

What "science" shows that what I can actually SEE - the "clouds of smoke, steam, exhaust product and AIR being driven AWAY from the engine at high speed" is impossible? How can it be "impossible" when I/we can see it actually happening?

Air, at 14.7 psi, will provide resistance regardless of the amount of force acting on it.

Yet the video shows vast amounts of air being driven away from the engine, and not providing resistance.

What reason is there for it to do this, if the air below is actively resisting the exhaust flow?

Why do YOU think there is airflow from above the engine in such vast quantity, at such speed?
Why wouldn't air under roof start flowing the same direction as all other air?

I fail to see the mystery you are proposing.

I fail to see how you can miss the contradiction in what you say. You claim the air is providing resistance to the exhaust, while accepting that vast quantities of air are being drawn from above the engine once the exhaust displaces the non-resistant air below it.

How can the air be providing resistance when it has been summarily dismissed by the rocket exhaust, blown away with ease?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 13, 2020, 03:07:55 PM
the claim you are making is scientifically impossible.

What "science" shows that what I can actually SEE - the "clouds of smoke, steam, exhaust product and AIR being driven AWAY from the engine at high speed" is impossible? How can it be "impossible" when I/we can see it actually happening?
Air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance.

That is a fact, whether we see it or not.

You questioned me, asking if I saw air providing "no resistance" to the rocket exhaust, implying there is no resistance provided by the air.

That is a fact.

Your question is based on false assumptions.

That is a fact.
Air, at 14.7 psi, will provide resistance regardless of the amount of force acting on it.

Yet the video shows vast amounts of air being driven away from the engine, and not providing resistance.
Wrong.
What reason is there for it to do this, if the air below is actively resisting the exhaust flow?

Why do YOU think there is airflow from above the engine in such vast quantity, at such speed?
Why wouldn't air under roof start flowing the same direction as all other air?

I fail to see the mystery you are proposing.

I fail to see how you can miss the contradiction in what you say. You claim the air is providing resistance to the exhaust, while accepting that vast quantities of air are being drawn from above the engine once the exhaust displaces the non-resistant air below it.

How can the air be providing resistance when it has been summarily dismissed by the rocket exhaust, blown away with ease?
All things capable of being blown away are indeed blown away and this is natural and according to the laws of physics.

But it does not mean there is no resistance to the exhaust from air at 14.7 psi.

It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 11:32:02 PM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 11:35:33 AM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 14, 2020, 11:48:52 AM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?

Newton's laws - thrust is the reactive force acting in response to the force produced by the rocket exhaust encountering the pressure/resistance of the atmosphere . Equal and opposite .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2020, 12:22:05 PM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?

No, my question is a hypothetical, based on your assertion. I don't agree that the air does resist the exhaust, but I'm asking you to show how it would affect the craft, even if it did.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2020, 12:26:59 PM
Newton's laws - thrust is the reactive force acting in response to the force produced by the rocket exhaust encountering the pressure/resistance of the atmosphere . Equal and opposite .

... but the atmosphere clearly is not "resisting". This is clear from the engine test video. The atmosphere is a passenger, being dragged along for the ride by the exhaust. The exhaust displaces huge amounts of atmosphere, and more is drawn down from above the engine to compensate. If the atmosphere was truly providing a resistant "base" for the exhaust to bounce off, there'd be no reason for air movement from above the engine in this direction.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2020, 12:40:42 PM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?

No, my question is a hypothetical, based on your assertion. I don't agree that the air does resist the exhaust, but I'm asking you to show how it would affect the craft, even if it did.
Yeah, I am going to assert that air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance because that is a matter of scientific fact.

By denying this, you are denying reality.

Air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance, regardless of what you type here on this forum.

Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.

If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 14, 2020, 01:27:13 PM
You dropped all the videos in which the boffins/buffoons were unable to ignite rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in low pressure chambers until the rockets were turned into pressurised bombs

Actually no :)
The second video does show the guy trying a couple of times to get the rocket igniting in a vacuum and failing.
It was commendably honest of him to include that in the video so people could see his method.
Ignition is tricky in a vacuum as it requires oxygen and obviously there isn't any of that in a vacuum.
That's why rockets designed to work in space carry their own supply.
In the end the bloke in the second video showed how he solved the problem and the rocket demonstrably worked.

Quote
you rely on the one video in which the buffoon wont reveal his rocket design , cos it's a bomb is my guess. You display a complete lack of understanding  about the laws of physics. Where is the controlled repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine will work in a vacuum ? That's all you have to show me .

I've posted two videos :)
I note you have posted nothing but "chatroom waffle".
I await the credible source which agrees with you that Joule's result demonstrates that rockets can't work in a vacuum.
I've shown two videos which demonstrate they can, you are the one making this link. Please provide some backup for it.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 14, 2020, 09:35:55 PM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?

No, my question is a hypothetical, based on your assertion. I don't agree that the air does resist the exhaust, but I'm asking you to show how it would affect the craft, even if it did.
Yeah, I am going to assert that air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance because that is a matter of scientific fact.

By denying this, you are denying reality.

Air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance, regardless of what you type here on this forum.

Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.

If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.

I'm not clear as to how 14.7 psi would provide a suitable resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust coming out of the Shuttle's SRB's at launch. Please explain how that works.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 15, 2020, 01:01:04 AM
Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.
If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.

We're not talking about that, though.

We're talking about what happens below the engine, not the airflow over the body of the craft once it is in motion ...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2020, 10:06:24 AM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?

No, my question is a hypothetical, based on your assertion. I don't agree that the air does resist the exhaust, but I'm asking you to show how it would affect the craft, even if it did.
Yeah, I am going to assert that air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance because that is a matter of scientific fact.

By denying this, you are denying reality.

Air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance, regardless of what you type here on this forum.

Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.

If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.

I'm not clear as to how 14.7 psi would provide a suitable resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust coming out of the Shuttle's SRB's at launch. Please explain how that works.
Rocket stability.

Read about it.
Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.
If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.

We're not talking about that, though.

We're talking about what happens below the engine, not the airflow over the body of the craft once it is in motion ...
What happens below the engine is that thrust is generated by the rocket.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 15, 2020, 12:17:46 PM
What happens below the engine is that thrust is generated by the rocket.

..and stabilisers ON the rocket, once the rocket is in motion, have no relevance to whether or not the exhaust generates thrust below the rocket in a vacuum. Do they?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 15, 2020, 10:02:05 PM
It is still exerting a force on the exhaust at that pressure.

How does that translate into forward motion for the craft, though? If the exhaust has left the engine and air resists it, how does that move the rocket away from the air?
Do you accept your statement regarding air under pressure could provide no resistance was in error?

No, my question is a hypothetical, based on your assertion. I don't agree that the air does resist the exhaust, but I'm asking you to show how it would affect the craft, even if it did.
Yeah, I am going to assert that air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance because that is a matter of scientific fact.

By denying this, you are denying reality.

Air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance, regardless of what you type here on this forum.

Air pressure has an affect on the rocket flight.

If it didn't, the rocket would not need flight stabilizers.

I'm not clear as to how 14.7 psi would provide a suitable resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust coming out of the Shuttle's SRB's at launch. Please explain how that works.
Rocket stability.

Read about it.

I did read about it, apparently you didn't.

"NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or Atlas booster."
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktstab.html

Now, how does 14.7 psi provide resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2020, 02:34:29 PM

I did read about it, apparently you didn't.

"NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or Atlas booster."
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktstab.html

Now, how does 14.7 psi provide resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust?
Trying to state gimbaled engines are not a form of stabilizers? Please note that gimbaled engines add function to the aerodynamics...unless you are claiming we can now just build rockets in the shape of a house and it will fly just fine as long as it has gimbaled engines...

Also trying to claim that 3 million psi rocket engine would simply blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth.

Warning to all persons watching a rocket launch.

You will soon not be able to breath as the rocket will blow away your air supply.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 04:30:06 PM
Also trying to claim that 3 million psi rocket engine would simply blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth.

Nobody claimed that, now you're just acting the silly goat.

The air around the engine is clearly at the mercy of the rocket exhaust and provides no resistance to it, but this clearly wears off as distance from the engine increases.

3 million psi over the area of the engine(s) ... shall we do the maths and see if that works out greater than 14 psi?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2020, 05:19:28 PM
Also trying to claim that 3 million psi rocket engine would simply blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth.

Nobody claimed that, now you're just acting the silly goat.

The air around the engine is clearly at the mercy of the rocket exhaust and provides no resistance to it, but this clearly wears off as distance from the engine increases.

3 million psi over the area of the engine(s) ... shall we do the maths and see if that works out greater than 14 psi?
Of course it's going to evacuate the air immediately behind it, just like any process of drafting.

But you are here claiming the atmolayer provides no resistance. The quotes are in place.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 06:04:06 PM
Of course it's going to evacuate the air immediately behind it, just like any process of drafting.

But you are here claiming the atmolayer provides no resistance. The quotes are in place.

How can it provide resistance if it is being blown away, or "evacuated"?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2020, 06:41:06 PM
Of course it's going to evacuate the air immediately behind it, just like any process of drafting.

But you are here claiming the atmolayer provides no resistance. The quotes are in place.

How can it provide resistance if it is being blown away, or "evacuated"?
Reality says it does.

Otherwise, no more air at all and all the spectators die.

Just like air provides resistance to everything else moving on it or against it.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 08:22:14 PM
Otherwise, no more air at all and all the spectators die.

If China launches a ship, does it make waves on the coast of California?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 16, 2020, 10:31:18 PM

I did read about it, apparently you didn't.

"NOTE: Modern full scale rockets do not usually rely on aerodynamics for stability. Full scale rockets pivot their exhaust nozzles to provide stability and control. That's why you don't see fins on a Delta, Titan, or Atlas booster."
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktstab.html

Now, how does 14.7 psi provide resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust?
Trying to state gimbaled engines are not a form of stabilizers? Please note that gimbaled engines add function to the aerodynamics...unless you are claiming we can now just build rockets in the shape of a house and it will fly just fine as long as it has gimbaled engines...

Also trying to claim that 3 million psi rocket engine would simply blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth.

Warning to all persons watching a rocket launch.

You will soon not be able to breath as the rocket will blow away your air supply.

I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?

The question is, how does 14.7 psi provide resistance against 3.3 million pounds of thrust?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 11:31:17 AM
I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?
You asked for more clarity concerning how air under 14.7 psi provides resistance to the thrust of a rocket engine.

I suggest you search the internet for that clarity.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 11:33:41 AM
I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?
You asked for more clarity concerning how air under 14.7 psi provides resistance to the thrust of a rocket engine.

I suggest you search the internet for that clarity.

So, after all this searching enquiry, back and forth, and your dogged insistence that you're the one in the right, you're down to telling others to "go do their own research"?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 11:43:31 AM
I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?
You asked for more clarity concerning how air under 14.7 psi provides resistance to the thrust of a rocket engine.

I suggest you search the internet for that clarity.

So, after all this searching enquiry, back and forth, and your dogged insistence that you're the one in the right, you're down to telling others to "go do their own research"?
Well, I can see from the evidence that air is present and is providing resistance to the rocket thrust.

So, for someone who needs further clarity on the topic, the polite thing to do at this point, would be to refer them to available sources, and that is exactly what I did.

Thanks.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 17, 2020, 01:27:40 PM
Here's a source.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html

Quote
Rockets are great examples of how forces make things move. It's a common mistake to think that rockets move forward by "pushing back against the air"—and it's easy to see that this is a mistake when you remember that there's no air in space to push against. Space is literally that: empty space!

When it comes to forces, rockets perfectly demonstrate three important scientific rules called the laws of motion, which were developed about 300 years ago by English scientist Isaac Newton (1642–1727).

Newton said that when a force acts on something, it makes it accelerate (go faster, change direction, or both). So when you fire up your rocket engine, that makes the force that accelerates the rocket into the sky.

Rockets move upward by firing hot exhaust gas downward, rather like jet planes—or blown-up balloons from which you let the (cold) air escape. This is an example of what's often called "action and reaction" (another name for Newton's third law of motion): the hot exhaust gas firing down (the action) creates an equal and opposite force (the reaction) that speeds the rocket up. The action is the force of the gas, the reaction's the force acting on the rocket—and the two forces are of equal size, but pointing in opposite directions, and acting on different things (which is why they don't cancel out).
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 01:36:28 PM
Here's a source.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html

Quote
Rockets are great examples of how forces make things move. It's a common mistake to think that rockets move forward by "pushing back against the air"—and it's easy to see that this is a mistake when you remember that there's no air in space to push against. Space is literally that: empty space!

When it comes to forces, rockets perfectly demonstrate three important scientific rules called the laws of motion, which were developed about 300 years ago by English scientist Isaac Newton (1642–1727).

Newton said that when a force acts on something, it makes it accelerate (go faster, change direction, or both). So when you fire up your rocket engine, that makes the force that accelerates the rocket into the sky.

Rockets move upward by firing hot exhaust gas downward, rather like jet planes—or blown-up balloons from which you let the (cold) air escape. This is an example of what's often called "action and reaction" (another name for Newton's third law of motion): the hot exhaust gas firing down (the action) creates an equal and opposite force (the reaction) that speeds the rocket up. The action is the force of the gas, the reaction's the force acting on the rocket—and the two forces are of equal size, but pointing in opposite directions, and acting on different things (which is why they don't cancel out).
The force of gas (i.e, work) "firing down" in a vacuum = 0.

The equal and opposite reaction to 0 = 0.

I am surprised a person with an MA would write such BS...

Of course, I notice he is isn't doing actual work in the sciences.

He is writing children's books...

Get em while they're young...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 17, 2020, 01:52:12 PM
The force of gas (i.e, work) "firing down" in a vacuum = 0.

momentum
"the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity."

The gas has mass. And it's moving. So it has momentum.

Momentum has to be conserved.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1350/09Mom/Rock.html

Find me a credible source saying rockets don't work in a vacuum. You are inferring that from other things. Do scientists agree with you?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 04:00:39 PM
The force of gas (i.e, work) "firing down" in a vacuum = 0.

momentum
"the quantity of motion of a moving body, measured as a product of its mass and velocity."

The gas has mass. And it's moving. So it has momentum.

Momentum has to be conserved.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1350/09Mom/Rock.html

Find me a credible source saying rockets don't work in a vacuum. You are inferring that from other things. Do scientists agree with you?
Scientists agree that gas when expelled into a vacuum does 0 work (i.e., there is no momentum...it freely expands).

Scientists also agree the equal and opposite of 0 is 0.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 17, 2020, 04:16:46 PM
So how is momentum conserved ?????
And NO the answer is not 0 = 0
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 04:26:31 PM
So how is momentum conserved ?????
And NO the answer is not 0 = 0
If the rocket could enter an environment devoid of pressure (i.e., a vacuum), whatever momentum it had upon entering would be maintained until such time a force acted upon.

That force could not be a gas being expelled into a vacuum, because a gas being expelled into a vacuum performs 0 work.

What else is equal to 0?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 17, 2020, 04:34:30 PM
Scientists agree that gas when expelled into a vacuum does 0 work (i.e., there is no momentum...it freely expands).

Scientists also agree the equal and opposite of 0 is 0.

They also agree that rockets work in a vacuum. Unless you can find me a credible source saying the opposite.
So someone has made a mistake, it's either you or literal rocket scientists. I'm going to say it's you, but I await your source.

Momentum is simply mass moving: mass x velocity.
Does the gas have mass? Yes.
Does it have velocity? Clearly yes.
So the momentum > 0. Conservation of momentum means rockets work, just ask scientists.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 04:37:49 PM
Scientists agree that gas when expelled into a vacuum does 0 work (i.e., there is no momentum...it freely expands).

Scientists also agree the equal and opposite of 0 is 0.

They also agree that rockets work in a vacuum. Unless you can find me a credible source saying the opposite.
So someone has made a mistake, it's either you or literal rocket scientists. I'm going to say it's you, but I await your source.

Momentum is simply mass moving: mass x velocity.
Does the gas have mass? Yes.
Does it have velocity? Clearly yes.
So the momentum > 0. Conservation of momentum means rockets work, just ask scientists.
A gas has no velocity when ejected, expelled, released into a vacuum...it freely expands.

That is a scientific fact.

Just ask scientists.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 17, 2020, 04:42:48 PM
Just ask scientists.

So, what scientist would you believe. Could they post here and you would except their opinion?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 04:44:58 PM
Just ask scientists.

So, what scientist would you believe. Could they post here and you would except their opinion?
Anyone is free to post here if they create an account.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 17, 2020, 04:52:17 PM
What I asked, was would you believe them?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2020, 05:01:26 PM
What I asked, was would you believe them?
That sounds like a future based questioned that has no objective basis on which to form any conclusion at this time.

More information is needed.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Just ask scientists.

Name one that agrees with you, or cite a reliable scholarly source authored by one.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 17, 2020, 05:56:31 PM
Would you believe any of these scientists?
Bill Nye, Ahmed Mahjub, Paul Gradl, Shiva Prasad , Alessandro Gardi, Roberto Sabatini, Lynn Thalaal, Jeff Kang, Roland Schmehl

Books and there Authors
Advanced Control of Aircraft, Spacecraft, and Rockets (Tewari), Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines (Huzel, Huang), Rocket Propulsion Elements (Sutton, Biblarz), Elements of Propulsion, Gas Turbines and Rockets (Mattingly), Rocket Spacecraft Propulsion (Turner), Fundamentals of Compressible Flow with Aircraft and Rocket Propulsion (Yahya)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on February 17, 2020, 08:06:08 PM
I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?
You asked for more clarity concerning how air under 14.7 psi provides resistance to the thrust of a rocket engine.

I suggest you search the internet for that clarity.

You completely dodged the question and refuse to support your own claim.

You claim that rockets push off the 14.7 psi of air underneath it. I asked you how 3+million pounds of thrust pushes off of 14.7 psi of air resistance. You said look it up (lame). I did, I can't find any scientific source that says a rocket pushes off of the atmosphere. What's your source for saying it does?

Here's a succinct explanation:

"If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum...This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force Ps2 pushing on it.

Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work."
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 10:33:42 PM
Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force Ps2 pushing on it.

Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work."

I concur. I use a similar example over at YouTube;

Imagine the container, floating free in space; sealed, filled with rocket fuel and a means to ignite it remotely
Ignite the fuel
One of two things happens; the box is strong enough to contain the reaction, and holds, or - the expansion exceeds the strength of the box, which then ruptures at its weakest point
Debris is cast outward in the second scenario, showing the pressure exerted by the expansion on the inside surfaces, and showing all surfaces acted upon

Imagine the same fuel ignition with one side missing, and the result is as described above
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 10:27:53 AM
A gas has no velocity when ejected, expelled, released into a vacuum...
Wow.

Dude, velocity is simply something moving in a given direction.
Just ask scientists. Or a dictionary.
Not having a go but if you don't even understand simple concepts like this then you really need to do a course on basic physics before thinking you understand how rockets work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 11:14:06 AM
I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?
You asked for more clarity concerning how air under 14.7 psi provides resistance to the thrust of a rocket engine.

I suggest you search the internet for that clarity.

You completely dodged the question and refuse to support your own claim.

You claim that rockets push off the 14.7 psi of air underneath it. I asked you how 3+million pounds of thrust pushes off of 14.7 psi of air resistance. You said look it up (lame). I did, I can't find any scientific source that says a rocket pushes off of the atmosphere. What's your source for saying it does?

Here's a succinct explanation:

"If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum...This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force Ps2 pushing on it.

Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work."
I claimed that air, at 14.7 psi, provides resistance.

This:

You claim that rockets push off the 14.7 psi of air underneath it.
I have not written.

The rest of the stuff you have written is fallacious, as the equal and opposite reaction to 0 = 0.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 12:08:53 PM
A gas has no velocity when ejected, expelled, released into a vacuum...

So if we took that engine test rig that I linked to earlier, and placed it in a vacuum, the engine exhaust would switch from having 418,000 lb/f of thrust to simply having exhaust that stood still?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 12:35:22 PM
A gas has no velocity when ejected, expelled, released into a vacuum...

So if we took that engine test rig that I linked to earlier, and placed it in a vacuum, the engine exhaust would switch from having 418,000 lb/f of thrust to simply having exhaust that stood still?
Gas, when released into a vacuum, freely expands and performs 0 work.

Since gas still has mass and force (i.e., work) = m*a, then a must = 0, if the outcome is 0.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 12:43:16 PM
Since gas still has mass
Yes, it does. And what does it also have? Contrary to your statement above, it has velocity. It's moving in a direction, that's what velocity is.

Momentum = mass x velocity.

Both of those are clearly > 0, so the gas has momentum.

And that's why the rocket moves, because of conservation of momentum. Find a reputable scientist who disagrees.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 12:49:25 PM
Since gas still has mass
Yes, it does. And what does it also have? Contrary to your statement above, it has velocity. It's moving in a direction, that's what velocity is.

Momentum = mass x velocity.

Both of those are clearly > 0, so the gas has momentum.

And that's why the rocket moves, because of conservation of momentum. Find a reputable scientist who disagrees.
Please...

Acceleration =/= velocity.

The rate of change of momentum in a particle is directly related to the change of force upon it.

Now you are claiming to have a different way of achieving 0 as an outcome to a simple math problem.

Free expansion states the following: Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

Since force (i.e., work) = mass*acceleration, and gas still has mass > 0...

If f = 0, that must mean that a also = 0.

That is math and there is no arguing against it.

Plus, if an object is freely expanding into nothingness, define the frame of reference to determine its exact velocity...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 01:09:04 PM
Now you are claiming to have a different way of achieving 0 as an outcome to a simple math problem.
I'm simply claiming these definitions:

velocity - something moving at a speed in a direction
mass - how much "stuff" something is made of

momentum - mass x velocity

Those are not my definitions, that is how physics defines those things.

Gas clearly has mass.
It is expelled out of the rocket at speed so it has velocity.

If mass and velocity are both greater than 0 then the momentum is greater than zero because maths.
And momentum is conserved because physics.

And that's how rockets work, not because they are "pushing" against anything.

You are the one erroneously equating the free expansion and word done result with the working of rockets. I believe somerled did too. I asked him to provide a credible source agreeing with him, I ask you the same. We both know you won't find one.

You might want to put "Free expansion states the following: Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work." in your signature to save you typing it in each post, but you are not correct in believing that this result shows that rockets can't work. Rockets work because they expel gas (mass) at speed out of the rocket (velocity). This gas has momentum. Momentum is conserved so the rocket is pushed in the opposite direction.

I'm sure you can find sources for the free expansion result but you are alone in equating that with the claim that rockets don't work in a vacuum.
Find a source which agrees with you.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 01:17:40 PM
Plus, if an object is freely expanding into nothingness, define the frame of reference to determine its exact velocity...

The frame of reference is the rocket. The exhaust gas starts out within it, and moves to a position outwith. It therefore covers some distance, over a period of time. Distance and time are used to compute velocity.

Unless you're suggesting that we are unable to determine the position of something(s) within a vacuum, because it's "nothingness" ... ?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
Now you are claiming to have a different way of achieving 0 as an outcome to a simple math problem.
I'm simply claiming these definitions:

velocity - something moving at a speed in a direction
mass - how much "stuff" something is made of

momentum - mass x velocity

Those are not my definitions, that is how physics defines those things.

Gas clearly has mass.
It is expelled out of the rocket at speed so it has velocity.

If mass and velocity are both greater than 0 then the momentum is greater than zero because maths.
And momentum is conserved because physics.

And that's how rockets work, not because they are "pushing" against anything.

You are the one erroneously equating the free expansion and word done result with the working of rockets. I believe somerled did too. I asked him to provide a credible source agreeing with him, I ask you the same. We both know you won't find one.

You might want to put "Free expansion states the following: Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work." in your signature to save you typing it in each post, but you are not correct in believing that this result shows that rockets can't work. Rockets work because they expel gas (mass) at speed out of the rocket (velocity). This gas has momentum. Momentum is conserved so the rocket is pushed in the opposite direction.

I'm sure you can find sources for the free expansion result but you are alone in equating that with the claim that rockets don't work in a vacuum.
Find a source which agrees with you.
The source that agrees with me is this.

The science of free expansion.

I noticed you totally ignored that velocity is a vector quantity.

Thus ignoring the frame of reference necessary for operating in an expanse of nothingness.

Ignored momentum has a direct relation to force.

Since force (work) = 0 in free expansion and work (w) = mass (m) * acceleration (a), if w = 0, then either m = 0, or a = 0, or both = 0. We know m >0, then that a = 0.

Sorry.

Those are all facts.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 01:28:22 PM
The source that agrees with me is this.

The science of free expansion.

You are claiming that result shows that rockets don't work in a vacuum. Please find a link which agrees with you.

Quote
I noticed you totally ignored that velocity is a vector quantity.

Correct. It has a magnitude and direction. The frame of reference is the rocket.

Do you disagree the gas has momentum?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 01:31:40 PM
I notice that the vacuum we were previously discussing is now "nothingness". Wonder why?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 01:35:55 PM
The source that agrees with me is this.

The science of free expansion.

You are claiming that result shows that rockets don't work in a vacuum. Please find a link which agrees with you.
What link would I need?

Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

Since the equal and opposite reaction to 0 is also 0, the rocket does 0 work.
Quote
I noticed you totally ignored that velocity is a vector quantity.

Correct. It has a magnitude and direction. The frame of reference is the rocket.

Do you disagree the gas has momentum?
Since momentum is directly related to force, then yes.

Since the force (i.e., work) performed by gas expelled into a vacuum = 0, that must mean that

A. Mass = 0; or,
B. Acceleration = 0.

We already know Mass > 0.

Therefore, acceleration = 0, and therefore momentum = 0.
I notice that the vacuum we were previously discussing is now "nothingness". Wonder why?
Now claiming outer space is not a vacuum?

Not that I believe in such a thing as outer space anyway, but this would be a better argument on your part...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 01:56:28 PM
What link would I need?

Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

I'm not entirely convinced that a rocket which expels gas with explosive force is equivalent to the free expansion result.
But OK, let's say it is.
Find a link which agrees with you that this means rockets don't work in a vacuum. You are stating these two things are linked.
Do scientists agree with you?

Quote
Since momentum is directly related to force, then yes.

Oh. Well, momentum is velocity x mass. That isn't my definition, it's the one from physics.
Since the gas clearly has velocity - it's expelled from the rocket at high speed - and clearly has mass and the momentum is the product of those two things.
Both those things are > 0 so the product of them is.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 01:57:39 PM
What link would I need?

Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

I'm not entirely convinced that a rocket which expels gas with explosive force is equivalent to the free expansion result.
But OK, let's say it is.
Find a link which agrees with you that this means rockets don't work in a vacuum. You are stating these two things are linked.
Do scientists agree with you?

Quote
Since momentum is directly related to force, then yes.

Oh. Well, momentum is velocity x mass. That isn't my definition, it's the one from physics.
Since the gas clearly has velocity - it's expelled from the rocket at high speed - and clearly has mass and the momentum is the product of those two things.
Both those things are > 0 so the product of them is.
We get your not entirely convinced.

That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 02:25:40 PM
That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
OK.
And now all you have to do is show a link from a credible scientist who agrees with you that this means that rockets don't work in space.
Can you just post it when you find it so I can have a look. Thanks.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 04:22:57 PM
That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
OK.
And now all you have to do is show a link from a credible scientist who agrees with you that this means that rockets don't work in space.
Can you just post it when you find it so I can have a look. Thanks.
If you read my posts, I have written that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

All scientists agree with this.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 04:27:23 PM
All scientists agree with this.

Sorry, not a credible answer. Nobody will believe you have spoken with them all.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 04:28:57 PM
All scientists agree with this.

Sorry, not a credible answer. Nobody will believe you have spoken with them all.
I don't need to speak with all of them.

Who said I did?

You know, it's like the kangaroos...I don't need to see one in Australia to know that 0 scientists disagree with free expansion of gas into a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 18, 2020, 04:44:05 PM
That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
OK.
And now all you have to do is show a link from a credible scientist who agrees with you that this means that rockets don't work in space.
Can you just post it when you find it so I can have a look. Thanks.
If you read my posts, I have written that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

All scientists agree with this.
Great. All I've asked for is a link to an article by a credible scientist saying that rockets don't work in a vacuum.
If they all agree with it then that shouldn't be too hard to find.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 04:54:42 PM
That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
OK.
And now all you have to do is show a link from a credible scientist who agrees with you that this means that rockets don't work in space.
Can you just post it when you find it so I can have a look. Thanks.
If you read my posts, I have written that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

All scientists agree with this.
Great. All I've asked for is a link to an article by a credible scientist saying that rockets don't work in a vacuum.
If they all agree with it then that shouldn't be too hard to find.
All I have posted here is the sheer science of the matter.

You have posted a video of a guy who is tapping on a malfunctioning gauge (with no real rocket in sight, by the way) as evidence rockets do work in a vacuum. When asked for a scientific paper concerning proper protocol for the amount of force to be applied to each tap and the number of taps to be administered to a malfunctioning gauge, the answer is...

Nothing in response.

In addition, you posted a video of a guy who had mounted two model rocket engines inside what is purported to be a vacuum chamber and then fires them off.

I write purported to be, because the same guy WILLINGLY ADMITS the chamber isn't... A VACUUM!!!

Just a couple of minutes in, he looks at the inside of it and states in the video, "Hopefully, this water isn't going to cause to much trouble...it will limit the amount of vacuum I can achieve..."

He tries to get the rocket motor to ignite...fails twice...

Finally, places the rocket motor inside a SEALED AND PRESSURIZED CONTAINER to get it to work inside a container (not a vacuum, but pressure lowered to 15 on the gauge)...

Jeez Louise...

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

But, they all know that free expansion is real and proven...

But, they all know that rockets are real and just containers of gas...

And finally, they all know that rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: RoundLurker on February 20, 2020, 08:30:59 AM

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.


...and what does that tell you?  ::)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2020, 11:19:46 AM

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.


...and what does that tell you?  ::)
That tells me they don't want to lose any money.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: RoundLurker on February 20, 2020, 11:33:18 AM

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.


...and what does that tell you?  ::)
That tells me they don't want to lose any money.

Every physicist/scientist in the world (or at least those with an interest in rockets/vacuums) is just ignoring the facts to keep getting funding? Even those who are in self-funded higher-education, for example?  Wouldn't that be worth a Nobel Prize, being able to prove Lackeys Law?

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2020, 12:08:03 PM

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.


...and what does that tell you?  ::)
That tells me they don't want to lose any money.

Every physicist/scientist in the world (or at least those with an interest in rockets/vacuums) is just ignoring the facts to keep getting funding? Even those who are in self-funded higher-education, for example?  Wouldn't that be worth a Nobel Prize, being able to prove Lackeys Law?
The law of free expansion has already been proven...all the videos posted here continue to prove it.

No Nobel Prize for demonstrating a known law.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 20, 2020, 12:48:33 PM
The law of free expansion has already been proven...
But you are the only one claiming a link between that and conservation of momentum not working for rockets in space.
The Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that link as it seems to have eluded scientists. And rockets, come to think of it, which seem to work perfectly fine.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2020, 03:17:45 PM
The law of free expansion has already been proven...
But you are the only one claiming a link between that and conservation of momentum not working for rockets in space.
The Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that link as it seems to have eluded scientists. And rockets, come to think of it, which seem to work perfectly fine.
Of course rockets work.

I have never written that rockets don't work.

I have written that rockets do not work in a vacuum.

And all the videos you have posted bear this fact out quite nicely.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: ChrisTP on February 20, 2020, 03:26:21 PM
The law of free expansion has already been proven...
But you are the only one claiming a link between that and conservation of momentum not working for rockets in space.
The Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that link as it seems to have eluded scientists. And rockets, come to think of it, which seem to work perfectly fine.

And all the videos you have posted bear this fact out quite nicely.
Someone posted a video of the moon lander launching from the moons surface and you just yelled fake with no evidence, so I doubt any video would change your mind since you're unwilling to take anything that goes against your belief seriously.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 20, 2020, 03:59:37 PM
I have written that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Yes, and as everyone keeps explaining to you, you are incorrect.
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. The gas has momentum when propelled from the rocket with explosive force.
It's being propelled away from the rocket thus has velocity, it obviously has mass. Momentum = mass x velocity.
So rockets work in a vacuum, it's nothing to do with the gas pushing against anything.
If you can find a scientist who agrees with you then please post a link to their article on the subject.
I note you continue to be unable to. :)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 20, 2020, 04:05:08 PM
Kinda of off topic, I just discovered that Brian May :) is astronomer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nISwx3VbRA


 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on February 20, 2020, 05:05:42 PM
Every person who has any intelligence knows it was all fake...Hello !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=358&v=QMapSAKvB7U&feature=emb_title
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on February 20, 2020, 05:10:07 PM
Hey Evil = Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart knows nuttin about space, he keeps admitting to knowing jack. He's a composer of muszac !
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 20, 2020, 05:21:22 PM

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.


...and what does that tell you?  ::)

Science is controlled .
The law of free expansion has already been proven...

But you are the only one claiming a link between that and conservation of momentum not working for rockets in space.
The Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that link as it seems to have eluded scientists. And rockets, come to think of it, which seem to work perfectly fine.

Is your space a vacuum ? Are you changing your argument ?
There is no repeatable scientific experiment proving a rocket engine works in a vacuum . That's why no one can link to any. That's also why Joules gas law is a scientific law , because if science could show that  a rocket engine ( a reactive engine ) produces work in a vacuum then we wouldn't have that law of  Joules .

Nasa provides a nice drawing here of a rocket - shows the principles of rocket thrust - although the written explanation is garbage apart from the first sentence .
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/TRCRocket/rocket_principles.html
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 20, 2020, 06:42:23 PM
Here is the first hit by google to the search term "scientific experiment proving a rocket engine works in a vacuum"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: RoundLurker on February 21, 2020, 08:56:21 AM

No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.


...and what does that tell you?  ::)

Science is controlled .


You're going to have to elaborate on that one.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 21, 2020, 09:32:09 AM
He gives a good demonstration of Joules law. Several failed attempts to ignite a rocket engine in a vacuum. Changes his rocket into a bomb at 9mins since he can't get it to work (predicted by Joules law) . He eventually is able to produce a force by exploding his pressurised bomb and demonstrates Newtons 3rd  after proving rockets don't work or even ignite in a vacuum .
 

 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2020, 12:12:40 PM
The law of free expansion has already been proven...
But you are the only one claiming a link between that and conservation of momentum not working for rockets in space.
The Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that link as it seems to have eluded scientists. And rockets, come to think of it, which seem to work perfectly fine.

And all the videos you have posted bear this fact out quite nicely.
Someone posted a video of the moon lander launching from the moons surface and you just yelled fake with no evidence, so I doubt any video would change your mind since you're unwilling to take anything that goes against your belief seriously.
Yeah, someone posted a video of that in another thread.

The validity of the video in question is up for debate.

Plus the same poster was forced to admit that it isn't a vacuum environment.

That lander video is entirely fake.

The whole moon landing story is fake.

Neil Armstrong was damn near killed when trying to fly the thing.

No way they landed on the moon, let alone took off.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on February 22, 2020, 03:05:45 PM
Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

I'm not entirely convinced that a rocket which expels gas with explosive force is equivalent to the free expansion result.
But OK, let's say it is.
No, let's not.
Rockets are not containers of gas.
The workings of a rocket are not equivalent to free expansion.
In free expansion the amount of gas is constant (only its distribution in a defined "enclosure" changes) whereas a rocket dramatically increases the amount of gas (and there is no enclosure).

Similar effect:
Inflate a balloon,

That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
There is no point in following this line of argument, when the starting point is known to be wrong.
See above.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 22, 2020, 03:10:55 PM
Another fantastic video proving rockets don't work in a vacuum.
TL, if you don't agree with T_E_T's assessment, please provide an argument as to why. Don't just "nuh uh" him, as that doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 22, 2020, 07:36:07 PM
Another fantastic video proving rockets don't work in a vacuum.
TL, if you don't agree with T_E_T's assessment, please provide an argument as to why. Don't just "nuh uh" him, as that doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Sorry Pete.

I just removed the offending post, since somerled already addressed the issues with the video (I missed his succinct and accurate rebuttal).

Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

I'm not entirely convinced that a rocket which expels gas with explosive force is equivalent to the free expansion result.
But OK, let's say it is.
No, let's not.
Rockets are not containers of gas.
Yes, they are.
The workings of a rocket are not equivalent to free expansion.
Yes, it is.

All the videos posted here succinctly and distinctly offer affirmative proof this is the case.
In free expansion the amount of gas is constant (only its distribution in a defined "enclosure" changes) whereas a rocket dramatically increases the amount of gas (and there is no enclosure).
All containers of gas are under pressure.

Gas, when released into a vacuum, regardless of the pressure behind it, performs 0 work.
Similar effect:
Inflate a balloon,
  • let it go ... it will "rocket" away.
  • conenct it to an empty balloon, let it go ... no "work done.


That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
There is no point in following this line of argument, when the starting point is known to be wrong.
See above.

iC

I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.

They actually prove exactly what I am stating.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

The equal and opposite reaction to 0, not surprisingly, is 0.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 22, 2020, 11:07:27 PM
All I have posted here is the sheer science of the matter.
Science you repeatedly fail to understand. You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. I note you have failed to produce any source at all which agrees with you.
It's bizarre how confident you are in your ability in this area when you don't seem to understand that gas ejected from a rocket must have velocity. It is propelled (speed) away from the rocket (direction). That's literally the definition of velocity.
If it has velocity then since it has mass it must have momentum. Which is how rockets work, by conservation of momentum, not because they are pushing against anything.

Quote
You have posted a video of a guy who is tapping on a malfunctioning gauge (with no real rocket in sight, by the way) as evidence rockets do work in a vacuum. When asked for a scientific paper concerning proper protocol for the amount of force to be applied to each tap and the number of taps to be administered to a malfunctioning gauge, the answer is...
Nothing in response.

Why do you keep lying about this? The gauge is clearly not malfunctioning, you can see in the video the gauge recording the pressure drop as he pumps the air out.
In reply 20 in this thread I posted a link to a paper about how to calibrate pressure gauges which mentions in section 14 why someone might tap the gauge. Here's the relevant section if you didn't bother looking at it before:

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


Quote
In addition, you posted a video of a guy who had mounted two model rocket engines inside what is purported to be a vacuum chamber and then fires them off.

I've posted several videos. Here's another for you to excuse somehow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic

Quote
No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Correct. Because they know that the free expansion result does not mean rockets can't work in a vacuum. Because the gas expelled from rockets has momentum and conservation of momentum is real and proven...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 23, 2020, 09:17:57 AM
All I have posted here is the sheer science of the matter.
Science you repeatedly fail to understand. You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. I note you have failed to produce any source at all which agrees with you.
Why should I post anything?

All you have done is post videos that clearly support the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.
It's bizarre how confident you are in your ability in this area when you don't seem to understand that gas ejected from a rocket must have velocity. It is propelled (speed) away from the rocket (direction). That's literally the definition of velocity.
If it has velocity then since it has mass it must have momentum. Which is how rockets work, by conservation of momentum, not because they are pushing against anything.
All the videos you have posted support that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Quote
You have posted a video of a guy who is tapping on a malfunctioning gauge (with no real rocket in sight, by the way) as evidence rockets do work in a vacuum. When asked for a scientific paper concerning proper protocol for the amount of force to be applied to each tap and the number of taps to be administered to a malfunctioning gauge, the answer is...
Nothing in response.

Why do you keep lying about this? The gauge is clearly not malfunctioning, you can see in the video the gauge recording the pressure drop as he pumps the air out.
In reply 20 in this thread I posted a link to a paper about how to calibrate pressure gauges which mentions in section 14 why someone might tap the gauge. Here's the relevant section if you didn't bother looking at it before:

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

Not to mention...is there a rocket visible anywhere in the video...answer - no.

Quote
In addition, you posted a video of a guy who had mounted two model rocket engines inside what is purported to be a vacuum chamber and then fires them off.

I've posted several videos. Here's another for you to excuse somehow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic
The rocket shown in this video also doesn't work in a vacuum.

That happens to be the video done prior to the one where the guy turns the rocket into a bomb.
Quote
No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Correct. Because they know that the free expansion result does not mean rockets can't work in a vacuum. Because the gas expelled from rockets has momentum and conservation of momentum is real and proven...
Gas, when expelled into a vacuum, does 0 work.

All the videos you have posted clearly prove this fact.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on February 23, 2020, 10:23:06 AM
As you haven't responded to my reasoning other then repeating the same (know and disproved) claims over and over, I will let it stand as it is until you feel like engaging in a real discussion, as in providing facts and reason instead of simply reiterating claims. 

I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.
They actually prove exactly what I am stating.
Well, I've looked at the videos and I honestly cannot see, where they would prove what you are saying.
Would you care to be more specific or will you keep doing the "nuh uh" routine?

Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

In addition to the previously postet reasoning (still valid), why this isn't relevant for rockets:
Do you understand, what "work" means in the context of free expansion? (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html))

With free expansion no "work" is performed by the gas because there is no energy transfer. (Note, however, that there is still movement, as the gas moves to occupy a larger volume).
With a rocket, in contrast, there is a lot of energy transfer (e.g. exothermic reaction solid/liquid fuel). => free expansion does not disprove rockets working in a vacuum; totally different stories.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: EngineerMan on February 24, 2020, 03:27:42 AM
I guess my whole career is a sham.  All that time I spent away from my family working on the space shuttle and the space station.  All that time I wasted working on experiments that never really flew or were operated by astronauts.  All of my family members that worked on Apollo lied to me.  All of those calculations I made assuming the earth was round made for nothing.

Bummer...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 24, 2020, 10:38:25 AM
Why should I post anything?

You don't have to do anything. But it's telling that you can't.
You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. Does anyone in science agree with you?
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
You do have a habit of just stating things without any evidence.
iCare has carefully explained why your link between free expansion and rockets is invalid, all you're doing is repeating your stock phase over and over again, you're not providing any evidence for the link you're making.
And we both know why that is - because there isn't one.

Quote
All you have done is post videos that clearly support the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.

I've posted several videos showing rockets working in vacuums, all you've done is go "nuh-uh"

Quote
Why tap on a gauge if it is not malfunctioning?

What a strange response to a post where I literally pasted part of a technical manual on pressure gauges which explains exactly why.

Quote
Gas, when expelled into a vacuum, does 0 work.

In a very specific circumstance which does not apply to rockets. Again, look at iCare's posts where he clearly explains why.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 24, 2020, 10:51:52 AM
As you haven't responded to my reasoning other then repeating the same (know and disproved) claims over and over, I will let it stand as it is until you feel like engaging in a real discussion, as in providing facts and reason instead of simply reiterating claims. 

I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.
They actually prove exactly what I am stating.
Well, I've looked at the videos and I honestly cannot see, where they would prove what you are saying.
Would you care to be more specific or will you keep doing the "nuh uh" routine?

Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

In addition to the previously postet reasoning (still valid), why this isn't relevant for rockets:
Do you understand, what "work" means in the context of free expansion? (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html))

With free expansion no "work" is performed by the gas because there is no energy transfer. (Note, however, that there is still movement, as the gas moves to occupy a larger volume).
With a rocket, in contrast, there is a lot of energy transfer (e.g. exothermic reaction solid/liquid fuel). => free expansion does not disprove rockets working in a vacuum; totally different stories.

iC
Where is this energy transfer ?
Explain the physical process please , of conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
Movement of gas into a larger volume does not produce a force , which Joule proved.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2020, 11:33:53 AM
As you haven't responded to my reasoning other then repeating the same (know and disproved) claims over and over, I will let it stand as it is until you feel like engaging in a real discussion, as in providing facts and reason instead of simply reiterating claims.
Okay.

Describe your reasoning a little bit more, because my point is pretty clear.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.
I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.
They actually prove exactly what I am stating.
Well, I've looked at the videos and I honestly cannot see, where they would prove what you are saying.
Would you care to be more specific or will you keep doing the "nuh uh" routine?
Reasoning must include the following on your part: "I know I just wrote, 'I will let it stand as it is...' but let me get this in here..."

As far as you not being able to see in the videos what everyone else sees, the videos prove that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

In addition to the previously postet reasoning (still valid), why this isn't relevant for rockets:
Do you understand, what "work" means in the context of free expansion? (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html))

With free expansion no "work" is performed by the gas because there is no energy transfer. (Note, however, that there is still movement, as the gas moves to occupy a larger volume).
With a rocket, in contrast, there is a lot of energy transfer (e.g. exothermic reaction solid/liquid fuel). => free expansion does not disprove rockets working in a vacuum; totally different stories.

iC
0 work means exactly that.

These videos show rocket motors releasing gas into a vacuum.

The rockets do not move until there is no more vacuum.
Why should I post anything?

You don't have to do anything. But it's telling that you can't.
You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. Does anyone in science agree with you?
Are the videos you have provided created by scientists?

If they are, then yes...the people who made the videos agree with me.

And they prove it on camera.
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
You do have a habit of just stating things without any evidence.
iCare has carefully explained why your link between free expansion and rockets is invalid, all you're doing is repeating your stock phase over and over again, you're not providing any evidence for the link you're making.
And we both know why that is - because there isn't one.
Your videos have actually provided all the evidence for me.

They definitively show and prove that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Quote
All you have done is post videos that clearly support the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.

I've posted several videos showing rockets working in vacuums, all you've done is go "nuh-uh"
Not only have I not written the words, "nuh-uh,", both somerled and myself have written clear points as to why your video evidence actually supports the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Quote
Why tap on a gauge if it is not malfunctioning?

What a strange response to a post where I literally pasted part of a technical manual on pressure gauges which explains exactly why.
Yeah...it explains why...

The gauge is malfunctioning...
Quote
Gas, when expelled into a vacuum, does 0 work.

In a very specific circumstance which does not apply to rockets. Again, look at iCare's posts where he clearly explains why.
ICare and you have no clue about what you are writing about.

Your videos prove one very, simple fact.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on February 24, 2020, 01:08:39 PM
Where is this energy transfer ?

While this is actually more down AllAroundTheWorld's line of reasoning (which I think explains it very well) ...
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
... here's my take:

Explain the physical process please , of conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy
A rocket does not work by converting thermal energy to kinetic energy, at least not directly/mainly. See below.

in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
While I didn't bring up the term momentum, let me point out, that this is not about momentum being a force.
It is about "conservation of momentum" (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle)).
In other words: When an object (a rocket with everything in it) has no momentum (floating in a vacuum) and part of it (gas generated from fuel) is forced (exhausted/pushed) one way (gaining momentum), the remaining part of the object (rocket) must gain the same momentum in the opposite direction (accelerate).
This is not free expansion, it is "forced expansion".

Movement of gas into a larger volume does not produce a force , which Joule proved.
It may be true, but it does not apply (see above).
Free expansion is about a fixed amount of gas moving into a vacuum; no energy is added in the experiment.
Gas expands (same amount, more volume) & pressure drops accordingly => both cancelling each other out.
The "energy" of the gas stays the same.

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

The amount and the temperature of the gas increase dramatically => this is not free expansion
Unlike a propeller, which "pushes" against the medium surrounding it (and hence wouldn't work in a vacuum), a rocket "pushes" against the gas it generates (and hence works in a vacuum).

Counter question:
As rockets obviously work within our atmosphere, i.e. somehow increasing the (kinetic) energy of the rocket ... where does that energy go to in a vacuum?

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2020, 01:19:08 PM
in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
While I didn't bring up the term momentum, let me point out, that this is not about momentum being a force.
It is about "conservation of momentum" (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle)).
In other words: When an object (a rocket with everything in it) has no momentum (floating in a vacuum) and part of it (gas generated from fuel) is forced (exhausted/pushed) one way (gaining momentum), the remaining part of the object (rocket) must gain the same momentum in the opposite direction (accelerate).
This is not free expansion, it is "forced expansion"

iC
Funny, I look at the videos presented here by AATW...

They show the rockets going off...after they have been altered...and not moving in a vacuum...

Only when the gas expelled by the rocket turns the vacuum chamber in a pressurized environment do they actually move...

But they certainly do not show the rockets moving in a vacuum.

And the reason why is simple...gas, when released into a vacuum, is not, and cannot be "forced," into a vacuum.

All containers of gas have pressure.

When any container of gas is opened, the gas is released with that amount of instantaneous pressure applied at the opening...with the following notable exception...

When the opening of the container of gas is exposed to a vacuum...in which case...the gas just freely expands into the vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 24, 2020, 01:39:16 PM
They show the rockets going off...after they have been altered...and not moving in a vacuum...
The first video I posted - the one which you keep obsessing about with the gauge tapping - addresses this.
The tapping has been explained in a technical reference manual which is about how to calibrate pressure gauges and is NOT because the gauge doesn't work.
 
If you actually watch that video you'll note that it's his second attempt at an experiment to show a rocket working in a vacuum.
His first attempt drew some of the criticisms you are raising so the second attempt has a much longer tube to address the criticism that it's only once the rocket vents sufficient gas into the vacuum that the rocket has something to "push against". Because that's not how rockets work.
And if you watch his video you'll note that the gauge - which you can clearly see working in the video - doesn't change, or not significantly, when the rocket has burned. So while yes, the gas would have added some gas into the tube the gauge shows that it's not a significant amount.

iCare has explained in far better detail than I could why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on February 24, 2020, 03:09:17 PM
<Deleted my post, as you didn't refer to it anyway ... why quote it at all?>
Funny, I look at the videos presented here by AATW...
I'll leave that one to AATW. (Sharing is caring ... iCare  ;) ).

And the reason why is simple...gas, when released into a vacuum, is not, and cannot be "forced," into a vacuum.

Of course it can. Gas is always "forced" from where the pressure is higher to where the pressure is lower - until there's equilibrium.
Why would gas care if the lower pressure is 0?

When any container of gas is opened, the gas is released with that amount of instantaneous pressure applied at the opening...with the following notable exception...
When the container is closed, there is pressure at the valve (the valve being closed, it makes no difference, if there's a vacuum on the other side or not).
Case one: No vacuum, lower pressure outside => open valve => pressure applied
Case two: vacuum (lowest pressure) outside=> open valve => pressure "magically disappears"?  ???
Thinking of vacuum as 0 pressure, it's pretty much the same as low pressure ... just lower.
What is so significantly different about vacuum that it requires a "notable exception"?

Free expansion happens between two connected volumes/chambers; one contains a gas, the other "contains" a vacuum.
The chamber containing the gas is "pushed" one way by the "leaving" gas, but at the same time the other chamber is "pulled" the other way by the "leaving" vacuum.
With that specific (closed) setup all forced cancel each other out in the end and "no work" is done.

When the opening of the container of gas is exposed to a vacuum...in which case...the gas just freely expands into the vacuum.

Again: Free expansion does not apply to rockets. For the free expansion experiment you need a fixed amount of gas in a closed space (two connected chambers).
A rocket generates additional gas (through chemical reaction) and expels it into the "open", i.e. an "infinite" (at least compared to the amount of gas) space not connected to the rocket.

As I asked in my other post: For rockets to work in an atmosphere (which they observably do) kinetic energy needs to be "generated" somehow.
If in a vacuum this energy does not accelerate the rocket ... where does it go?
 
iC
 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2020, 04:15:20 PM
They show the rockets going off...after they have been altered...and not moving in a vacuum...
The first video I posted - the one which you keep obsessing about with the gauge tapping - addresses this.
The tapping has been explained in a technical reference manual which is about how to calibrate pressure gauges and is NOT because the gauge doesn't work.
You do not tap on gauges to calibrate them.

You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

If you actually watch that video you'll note that it's his second attempt at an experiment to show a rocket working in a vacuum.
His first attempt drew some of the criticisms you are raising so the second attempt has a much longer tube to address the criticism that it's only once the rocket vents sufficient gas into the vacuum that the rocket has something to "push against". Because that's not how rockets work.
And if you watch his video you'll note that the gauge - which you can clearly see working in the video - doesn't change, or not significantly, when the rocket has burned. So while yes, the gas would have added some gas into the tube the gauge shows that it's not a significant amount.

iCare has explained in far better detail than I could why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
Yes, we have already concluded, as you now admit here...

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2020, 04:18:41 PM
<Deleted my post, as you didn't refer to it anyway ... why quote it at all?>
Funny, I look at the videos presented here by AATW...
I'll leave that one to AATW. (Sharing is caring ... iCare  ;) ).

And the reason why is simple...gas, when released into a vacuum, is not, and cannot be "forced," into a vacuum.

Of course it can. Gas is always "forced" from where the pressure is higher to where the pressure is lower - until there's equilibrium.
Why would gas care if the lower pressure is 0?

When any container of gas is opened, the gas is released with that amount of instantaneous pressure applied at the opening...with the following notable exception...
When the container is closed, there is pressure at the valve (the valve being closed, it makes no difference, if there's a vacuum on the other side or not).
Case one: No vacuum, lower pressure outside => open valve => pressure applied
Case two: vacuum (lowest pressure) outside=> open valve => pressure "magically disappears"?  ???
Thinking of vacuum as 0 pressure, it's pretty much the same as low pressure ... just lower.
What is so significantly different about vacuum that it requires a "notable exception"?

Free expansion happens between two connected volumes/chambers; one contains a gas, the other "contains" a vacuum.
The chamber containing the gas is "pushed" one way by the "leaving" gas, but at the same time the other chamber is "pulled" the other way by the "leaving" vacuum.
With that specific (closed) setup all forced cancel each other out in the end and "no work" is done.

When the opening of the container of gas is exposed to a vacuum...in which case...the gas just freely expands into the vacuum.

Again: Free expansion does not apply to rockets. For the free expansion experiment you need a fixed amount of gas in a closed space (two connected chambers).
A rocket generates additional gas (through chemical reaction) and expels it into the "open", i.e. an "infinite" (at least compared to the amount of gas) space not connected to the rocket.

As I asked in my other post: For rockets to work in an atmosphere (which they observably do) kinetic energy needs to be "generated" somehow.
If in a vacuum this energy does not accelerate the rocket ... where does it go?
 
iC
 
It is quite evident from everything you have posted here that you do not understand what you are looking at in the videos here...the rockets are not moving in a vacuum and do not move until a sufficient amount of gas is present in the vacuum.

I do not doubt you care deeply about the subject, but until you realize that gas freely expands when released into a vacuum, as the videos here conclusively demonstrate, we will agree to disagree.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 24, 2020, 04:19:59 PM
Where is this energy transfer ?

While this is actually more down AllAroundTheWorld's line of reasoning (which I think explains it very well) ...
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
... here's my take:

Explain the physical process please , of conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy
A rocket does not work by converting thermal energy to kinetic energy, at least not directly/mainly. See below.

in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
While I didn't bring up the term momentum, let me point out, that this is not about momentum being a force.
It is about "conservation of momentum" (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle)).
In other words: When an object (a rocket with everything in it) has no momentum (floating in a vacuum) and part of it (gas generated from fuel) is forced (exhausted/pushed) one way (gaining momentum), the remaining part of the object (rocket) must gain the same momentum in the opposite direction (accelerate).
This is not free expansion, it is "forced expansion".

Movement of gas into a larger volume does not produce a force , which Joule proved.
It may be true, but it does not apply (see above).
Free expansion is about a fixed amount of gas moving into a vacuum; no energy is added in the experiment.
Gas expands (same amount, more volume) & pressure drops accordingly => both cancelling each other out.
The "energy" of the gas stays the same.

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

The amount and the temperature of the gas increase dramatically => this is not free expansion
Unlike a propeller, which "pushes" against the medium surrounding it (and hence wouldn't work in a vacuum), a rocket "pushes" against the gas it generates (and hence works in a vacuum).

Counter question:
As rockets obviously work within our atmosphere, i.e. somehow increasing the (kinetic) energy of the rocket ... where does that energy go to in a vacuum?

iC

Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .

The physical process of igniting rocket fuel with its own oxidizer does not happen in a vacuum . No work would be done even if it did ignite .
Gases expanding into a vacuum are not forced or pushed - that would require a resistance to expansion or gas flow . There is no force produced anywhere . Hence there is no reaction - no reactive thrust to accelerate . Hot gas expanding freely into the vacuum would merely raise the temperature since it cannot convert to kinetic energy. There is the conservation of energy .







Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 24, 2020, 04:20:54 PM
You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

Please stop lying.

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

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

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

And please stop trolling.
iCare has explained very clearly why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
I have explained as clearly as I can why the gas expelled from a rocket has momentum and thus rockets work by conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2020, 04:26:36 PM
You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

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

Your own source states:

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

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

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

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

I am not trolling.

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

If you do this, you will then see that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 24, 2020, 04:48:29 PM
AATW, if you can't engage in this discussion without throwing insults around, just back away. Escalation won't help here, and will likely result in mod wrath.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 24, 2020, 05:01:30 PM
You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

Please stop lying.

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

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

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

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

Rockets do not work by conservation of momentum , ridiculous statement. iCare has not clarified anything. All either of you two have to do is show the details of the repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine can produce thrust in a vacuum .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 24, 2020, 05:04:53 PM
If a gauge is experiencing friction or lost flexibility, that = malfunctioning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2020, 12:09:07 PM
If a gauge is experiencing friction or lost flexibility, that = malfunctioning.

Everything experiences friction  ???
Okay.

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

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

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

How many newtons was he applying with each tap?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: Just calling conservation of momentum a "ridiculous statement" when it is a well understood and accepted law of physics is not an argument.
The video does not even show a rocket.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2020, 12:15:17 PM
(Once again deleted my post, as - despite quoting it - you did not reference any of the content.)
It is quite evident from everything you have posted here that you do not understand what you are looking at in the videos here...the rockets are not moving in a vacuum and do not move until a sufficient amount of gas is present in the vacuum.
I am not referring to the videos at all (nevertheless, my compliments to the people who went to all that effort), but to well established physical principles.
However, as you keep bringing those videos up: Rockets in an atmosphere also do not move right away, so that doesn't prove anything.
The videos prove that rockets won't move in a vacuum as there is no vacuum present once the rockets in these videos commence movement.

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

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

iC
My arguments don't need to be numerous.

The couple of them I have written here are sufficient and remain unchallenged.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 25, 2020, 12:55:39 PM
Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .
No argument with that; quote Wikipedia: "Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's third law. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system."
"Expelling mass in one direction" (in this case gas produced by burning rocket fuel) works just fine in a vacuum. Why wouldn't?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iC

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

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

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

In order to dispute these scientific laws you will have to show the repeatable experiments that prove these laws are erroneous .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 25, 2020, 12:55:51 PM
Evidently when a gauge experiences friction, it can cause it to malfunction.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Plus, he never achieves 0 on the gauge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, well this is a fairly reasonable point. It's not a perfect vacuum, they are pretty much impossible to achieve.
But if you believe that rockets work because the gas propelled from them "pushes" against the atmosphere then surely if the pressure is low, even if it's not a perfect vacuum, the rocket would work very poorly. But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.
None of the videos you have posted show a rocket working in a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 25, 2020, 02:03:17 PM
One more time.

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

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

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

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

Well, you've been stating that without basis - that is how you seem to roll, you don't ever seem to be able to back up your points.
That's why I've ignored your "incorrect" above and your last sentence. The first is just you saying something without elaboration. You've said I'm wrong but not explained, it's basically another "nuh-uh". The second is you just repeating something over and over - another thing you are wont to do - and you haven't addressed the point I made at all. No response necessary.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: ChrisTP on February 25, 2020, 03:36:35 PM
People tap the gauge for the same reason people go for a regular checkup their with the doctor or get their MOT done for their car regularly. To make sure it's all in working order rather than assume it is.It's common sense Totallackey... Quit latching on to stupid arguments, it's going nowhere for you.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on February 25, 2020, 04:35:26 PM
My arguments don't need to be numerous.

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

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

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2020, 04:41:33 PM
One more time.

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

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

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

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

No rocket present.

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

Not once have I written "nuh-uh"
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: flatearthwizard on February 26, 2020, 04:46:23 AM
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

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

hello, i personally believe the moon landing was fake. I do not believe that we cannot do it altogether i just believe that america faked the videos. THe fuzzy proof is a bit of stretch i must admit.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 26, 2020, 10:29:00 AM
hello, i personally believe the moon landing was fake. I do not believe that we cannot do it altogether i just believe that america faked the videos.

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

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

No mention of what constitutes gentle tapping.

No mention of the amount of taps to be delivered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, well this is a fairly reasonable point. It's not a perfect vacuum, they are pretty much impossible to achieve.
But if you believe that rockets work because the gas propelled from them "pushes" against the atmosphere then surely if the pressure is low, even if it's not a perfect vacuum, the rocket would work very poorly. But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 26, 2020, 12:16:24 PM


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


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

iC

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

However in the vacuum of space :

If ( and that's a big one)you could start the control burn of fuel ( chemical reaction) in a vacuum you could produce heat  . You could not produce pressure since the rocket chamber is open to the vacuum of space . This is where your logic fails . The rocket engine (not a motor ) is unable to produce a force since there is nothing to resist the free expansion of hot gas into the vacuum - Joules law , hence no reactive force .Your logic fails .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 26, 2020, 12:46:51 PM
somerled - a thought experiment - take a standard tin can, such as you would find on a supermarket shelf with soup, beans or similar, and imagine you have filled it with rocket fuel, and you can ignite it remotely. No air within, just fuel.

You place it in a vacuum, and ignite the fuel.

There can only be one of two results, given that
"1 Energy stored in fuel =>
2 chemical reaction =>
3 lots of gas (and heat) produced =>
4 increased pressure  within  =>
5 physical reaction =>
6 gas gets "pushed" against internal walls


Result 1 - the walls are strong enough to hold, and the reaction is contained
Result 2 - the walls cannot do this, and the can ruptures at its weakest point

Agree?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 26, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
So, we do not know if the gauge used was or wasn't experiencing any of the issues described by the source above

What we do know is that the gauge clearly moves as he evacuates the chamber

(https://i.ibb.co/HT9y0rg/pump.jpg)

So it is not malfunctioning.
I note you have quoted the part of the document I posted. Note how it doesn't say anything about the gauge malfunctioning, it actually cautions people not to tap too hard so the gauge does not break.

Quote
Sorry, I am not latching on to a stupid argument. It is a legitimate argument.
It's not an argument at all, it's a diversion at best.

Quote
And the videos posted by those in agreement with your position absolutely destroy your rebuttal.
AATW now disagrees with you, as he admits these videos display rockets in operation in an environment that is NOT a vacuum.
The reason: Even he realizes that rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Please do not deliberately misrepresent my position. Rockets work in a vacuum because of Newton's 3rd law.
I have explained about the gas ejected from rockets having momentum ad nauseum.
iCare has carefully explained why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets. I note you haven't addressed his points.
You haven't addressed mine either:

Quote
But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.

So while I agree it might not be a perfect vacuum, it's close enough to demonstrate the principle.
If your assertion is that rockets work by "pushing off" the atmosphere then you'd expect the rocket to work far less efficiently when almost all the air is pumped out. That is not what is seen in those videos.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 26, 2020, 01:37:53 PM
So, we do not know if the gauge used was or wasn't experiencing any of the issues described by the source above

What we do know is that the gauge clearly moves as he evacuates the chamber

(https://i.ibb.co/HT9y0rg/pump.jpg)

So it is not malfunctioning.
He was tapping on it and the only reason to tap on it is, according to your own source is:

The gauge is, might be>>>MALFUNCTIONING!
I note you have quoted the part of the document I posted. Note how it doesn't say anything about the gauge malfunctioning, it actually cautions people not to tap too hard so the gauge does not break.
Yeah, I did, and I have been quoting and or referring to the source ever since you provided it, much to your dismay.

Your own source states the reasons for tapping on a gauge.

Reasons>>> friction or loss of flexibility (i.e., MALFUNCTIONING)
Quote
Sorry, I am not latching on to a stupid argument. It is a legitimate argument.
It's not an argument at all, it's a diversion at best.
Not a diversion.

Quoting and referring readers to your source is NOT diverting them from your source.
Quote
And the videos posted by those in agreement with your position absolutely destroy your rebuttal.
AATW now disagrees with you, as he admits these videos display rockets in operation in an environment that is NOT a vacuum.
The reason: Even he realizes that rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Please do not deliberately misrepresent my position. Rockets work in a vacuum because of Newton's 3rd law.
I have explained about the gas ejected from rockets having momentum ad nauseum.
iCare has carefully explained why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets. I note you haven't addressed his points.
You haven't addressed mine either:

Quote
But actually in the videos posted which show the rocket working in both normal pressure and in a vacuum, you can see the rockets work pretty much the same. Even if we agree that it's not a perfect vacuum, the pressure is still low enough that you wouldn't expect the rocket to work anywhere near as well as at full atmospheric pressure if the rocket was working in the way you suppose.

So while I agree it might not be a perfect vacuum, it's close enough to demonstrate the principle.
If your assertion is that rockets work by "pushing off" the atmosphere then you'd expect the rocket to work far less efficiently when almost all the air is pumped out. That is not what is seen in those videos.
I have addressed both you and ICare's points, using the videos YOU provided, which clearly show rockets NOT working in a vacuum.

When you admit it is not a vacuum, and I clearly stated AATW admits it is not a vacuum, then I am not misrepresenting your position.

You conceded the argument.

I argued > Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

You > finally agreed.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 26, 2020, 03:10:59 PM
somerled - a thought experiment - take a standard tin can, such as you would find on a supermarket shelf with soup, beans or similar, and imagine you have filled it with rocket fuel, and you can ignite it remotely. No air within, just fuel.

You place it in a vacuum, and ignite the fuel.

There can only be one of two results, given that
"1 Energy stored in fuel =>
2 chemical reaction =>
3 lots of gas (and heat) produced =>
4 increased pressure  within  =>
5 physical reaction =>
6 gas gets "pushed" against internal walls


Result 1 - the walls are strong enough to hold, and the reaction is contained
Result 2 - the walls cannot do this, and the can ruptures at its weakest point

Agree?

Here is an excellent video by a serious researcher , Cody - not a flat earther but knows his stuff and researches diligently . Should be of interest to you and iCare . It's not long but  skip the first 5 if you want .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cx9mNnky2U
Uses a real vacuum chamber.

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 .

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

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 26, 2020, 04:36:19 PM
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 don't think anyone is disputing Joule's result. What iCare has done is explained why that result doesn't apply to a rocket.
And rockets have a chamber in which combustion occurs. That's where the pressure is and that is where the combustion occurs, the explosive power from that then forces the gas out of the end. Conservation of momentum does the rest.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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 -
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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 26, 2020, 06:07:47 PM
He demonstrates Joules law , not carries out his experiment. Word salad iCare.

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 .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4

FYI AATW rocket chambers are not sealed containers.

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

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on February 26, 2020, 08:14:57 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
So, you too, admit there is no vacuum in these videos.

The mental reservation and equivocation exhibited in your writing today is quite astounding.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 26, 2020, 08:26:51 PM
The mental reservation and equivocation exhibited in your writing today is quite astounding.

We seam to be arguing semantics. So I have pulled up a definition that we should all be able to agree to, and I believe that from Merriam Webster the definition that is applicable here is the second one, and as such there is a fair bit of wiggle room on how to define it. I would argue that 2a is logically false, how could any thing be "absolutely devoid of matter".

Definition of vacuum (from, Merriam Webster)
1 : emptiness of space
2   a : a space absolutely devoid of matter
   b : a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (such as an air pump)
   c : a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure
3   a : a state or condition resembling a vacuum : void the power vacuum in Indochina after the departure of the French— Norman Cousins
   b : a state of isolation from outside influences people who live in a vacuum … so that the world outside them is of no moment— W. S. Maugham
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 26, 2020, 09:40:38 PM
Can I propose a different approach?

Conventional wisdom holds that there are at least two craft orbiting the Moon, actively sending signals back to Earth.

One is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the other the Chinese relay satellite picking up signals from their rover on the far side, and relaying them to Earth. There may be more, I've just picked the obvious, prominent examples.

It strikes me that all that need be done is point an antenna at the Moon, find the right frequency/frequencies, and the presence of any systematic transmission is proof that rockets work in space. Else, how would the craft sending the signals have got there?

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on February 27, 2020, 10:57:58 AM
It is clear that rocket engines cannot work in a vacuum or even a low pressure environment . You can change you rocket into a bomb but then that's a different experiment .

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 .

Would be interesting to have seen at what pressure ignition would occur .  Him being an intelligent diligent researcher would have done this I believe . Perhaps he could share this info if so .

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 .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 27, 2020, 11:07:00 AM
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 .

Yet we have evidence of craft in orbit around our Moon. The Space Geodesy Facility in the UK spent five years laser-ranging the LRO. How did they get there, if the above is true?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103516303657?via%3Dihub

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on February 27, 2020, 12:29:51 PM
You can change you rocket into a bomb but then that's a different experiment

What do you see as the difference?

I see it as -

Bomb - fixed supply of explosive/propellant, so instantaneous ignition/combustion/explosion

Rocket - regulated supply of explosive/propellant, so consistent ignition/combustion/explosion whilst explosive/propellant being supplied

In practical terms, do you see any differences pertinent to this discussion that precludes one or the other working in vacuum?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 01, 2020, 09:34:19 AM
Newtons first second and third laws . Joules law of free expansion of gas into a vacuum . No work is done therefore no force therefore no reaction therefore no acceleration .

         You do not understand the principles behind these laws - these laws are not open to debate . They dictate the inability of a rocket engine to produce any force in a vacuum . All amply demonstrated in the videos where experimenters cannot even ignite rocket fuel in a vacuum  .

         You seem to be unable to differentiate between a rocket engine and a bomb .
You have yet to state where the reactive force of thrust is produced or shown any logical argument which conforms to these laws that allows for rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum.
You have ignored the fact that these video experimenters state that pressure is required to produce a chemical reaction of rocket fuel in a vacuum and have to change their rocket engines into pressurised bombs .

You have however , excelled in your sophistry.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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:
 
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.)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 01, 2020, 11:27:30 AM
Your "take on things" requires that you explain within those laws of physics , 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 .

Take us through the logical steps and stop with the sophistry

Explain how a reactive force (thrust) is produced when there is no resistance to the free expansion of gas into a vacuum .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 01, 2020, 01:12:49 PM
Explain how a reactive force (thrust) is produced when there is no resistance to the free expansion of gas into a vacuum .

... and, to follow, could you explain how a non-vacuum provides a resistance which transfers energy to the body of the rocket, as opposed to the cloud of exhaust gases and other product which has come out of the engine into that non-vacuum?

If the surrounding air provides resistance, then why does it get driven so far away, and so fast, by the rocket exhaust?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 04, 2020, 11:07:37 AM

[/quote]
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
[/quote]
Your posts are hard to decipher - 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 . Therefore the reactive force of thrust is dependent on environment.
Second sentence you state otherwise .

Thrust is not produced by any chemical reaction , chemical reactions produce thermal energy . In a rocket engine this thermal energy increases the pressure inside the chamber which forces the exhaust gas out of the chamber where it encounters the resistive pressure of the air .Thrust is produced by resistance to this active force . Thermal energy converts to kinetic energy .

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.

In vacuum or low pressure conditions there is no resistance . 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 .

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 - if it did the joules law wouldn't be a law .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 04, 2020, 11:55:57 AM
In a rocket engine this thermal energy increases the pressure inside the chamber which forces the exhaust gas out of the chamber

Have a think about that sentence for a minute...
I've bolded the word you may wish to dwell on.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 04, 2020, 12:09:02 PM
Yep , as soon as internal pressure overtakes external pressure then a force is produced resulting in thrust. No external pressure = no force (or work done) . Joules law .

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


Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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.
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 (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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 04, 2020, 04:24:44 PM
A wall of waffle as usual .

What do you mean "not quite". You are actually beginning to understand rocketry now. Internal pressure greater than outer results in thrust.

Internal pressure equal to or less than external pressure = no thrust .

Internal pressure can only increase if there is an outer pressure to provide resistance. In a vacuum there is no outer pressure = no thrust . Thermal energy expands freely into the vacuum . All proven by scientific experiment.

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

No more sophistry.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 04, 2020, 04:53:58 PM
I think that these two statements are contradictory, as they both state that internal pressure is greater then the outer pressure. Please enplane your logic for the requirement of resistance.

Internal pressure greater than outer results in thrust.
Internal pressure can only increase if there is an outer pressure to provide resistance. In a vacuum there is no outer pressure = no thrust .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 04, 2020, 05:57:15 PM
So you and science cannot show the scientific experiment that proves a rocket can produce thrust in a vacuum .

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



Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 04, 2020, 07:48:07 PM
So you and science cannot show the scientific experiment that proves a rocket can produce thrust in a vacuum .

Would a bullet fired in a vacuum work? Yes bullets are a projectile with all of Newton's Law obeyed. Imagine then, if a gun where fired in a vacuum or space, would there be a recoil?

Here is a gun being fired in a vacuum chamber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9fA

FYI guns can be fired underwater too, check out the Slo-Mo Guys
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: J-Man on March 05, 2020, 03:47:47 AM
Do rockets work in a vacuum? Hell no...Just watch !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GenS0_BvGPU
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on March 05, 2020, 05:15:16 AM
Do rockets work in a vacuum? Hell no...Just watch !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GenS0_BvGPU

Looks like it was on the ground, not in a vacuum?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 05, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Do rockets work in a vacuum? Hell no...Just watch !!!

VID

You do realise this was simply a pressurisation test of the bodywork, and there wasn't actually any engine running in this test, don't you....?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 05, 2020, 11:58:08 AM
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

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 ?

The reason you don't do this is because there isn't one , hence your waffle .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 05, 2020, 01:30:50 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 ?

No waffle, the video of a gun being fired in a vacuum is evidence of hot gases doing work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 05, 2020, 04:00:20 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 ?

No waffle, the video of a gun being fired in a vacuum is evidence of hot gases doing work in a vacuum.
Big waffle, because even though the narrator states, "a gun can fire in a vacuum," sadly, the gun is fired in nowhere near a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 05, 2020, 04:08:45 PM
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 05, 2020, 04:29:53 PM
Again, what would you except as a vacuum?
A vacuum.
I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.
Of course there is work done by a gas when there is pressure.

All the videos you guys have posted clearly prove this!
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 05, 2020, 04:33:41 PM
Well that video of the gun being fired was inside a vacuum chamber, and work was done as the bullet punched right through the chamber wall. Where was the pressure in the chamber?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 05, 2020, 05:09:53 PM
Well that video of the gun being fired was inside a vacuum chamber, and work was done as the bullet punched right through the chamber wall. Where was the pressure in the chamber?
Well, I suggest you look at the gauge on the chamber and determine what the reading on the gauge is.

Aside from the fact there is no "exhausting" of the gas until the "explosion" occurs.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 05, 2020, 06:47:52 PM
So it was hard to read on the other video, but I think the gauge was around 13 in. HG or about 50% vacuum.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH7mNApnDYg

Again I ask how do you define a vacuum? Or where is the pressure in the chamber?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 06, 2020, 09:32:44 AM
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

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

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

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

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

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





Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 06, 2020, 10:22:09 AM
The laws of physics predict that a bomb or bullet ( both pressurised containers ) will explode in a vacuum . Testable by experiment in a vacuum chamber . Not under dispute.

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

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

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

Do you have any examples of bullets or bombs being exploded in a vacuum, under repeatable/repeated scientific experiments?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 06, 2020, 11:33:47 AM
I make no such claim . The laws of physics in vacuum or under pressure are clearly known .

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







 




Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 06, 2020, 01:21:57 PM
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

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

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

This sentence alone shows how little you understand about physics.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 07, 2020, 11:29:18 AM
Again, what would you except as a vacuum? I also see that you did not comment about the work being done.

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

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

This sentence alone shows how little you understand about physics.

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

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

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

Show the definitive scientific paper with related experiment that proves a rocket engine can work in a vacuum .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 07, 2020, 12:09:45 PM
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers . So when fired the chemical reaction takes place explosively within these pressurised containers the bomb will fragment and the bullet will be ejected by force since it is designed to eject before the casing disintegrates.

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

That the reaction, the expansion of combustion/exhaust product, initially within the bullet casing, but striving to get out once ignited, is sufficient to drive the bullet forward at high speed, whilst also generating recoil, felt by the holder of the gun, in the opposite direction?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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 (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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 07, 2020, 02:38:17 PM
Let us consider a gun held in standard fashion.

(https://static2.bigstockphoto.com/5/1/8/large2/8150834.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed?




Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 07, 2020, 05:55:46 PM
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers
No, they aren’t. I suppose you could call a bomb a container but it isn’t pressurised.
When it detonates then it does so with explosive force, that does create a pressure stronger than the container can withstand so it fragments. But what if the container was strong enough to withstand the force? Then on detonation nothing would happen (in an idealised scenario, imagine a spherical bomb like in cartoons where the explosive force was equal in all directions). You would probably her it but it wouldn’t go anywhere.
Now imagine there was a hole in the spherical bomb. On detonation. The hot gas would vent out of that hole at high speed and because of Newton’s third law the bomb would rocket off in the opposite direction. I use the word rocket advisedly because that’s pretty much what a rocket is. With a rocket of course the combustion is more controlled and sustained and there’s the hole to vent the gas out of but that’s about it. The hot gas resulting from the combustion has momentum, conservation of momentum does the rest. That is a law of physics which applies in a vacuum as much as it does in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 07, 2020, 06:50:29 PM
Bombs and bullets are pressurised containers .
Well, most of the time, they are not.
A common bomb is mostly solid until it is detonated, the same is true for a cartridge (isn't the bullet only the part that gets expelled?).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iC

Grown up version .

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUO88GmTM8

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

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

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

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

Yes they are unless they are assembled in a fkn vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 07, 2020, 07:14:56 PM
All known by real scientists up until 1930's - rocket engines do not work in a vacuum

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


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

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

So ... what IS the pressure within a typical bullet, do you reckon?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 07, 2020, 09:26:35 PM
Grown up version .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUO88GmTM8
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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 09, 2020, 10:38:48 AM
iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum?

Your claim that Joules 2nd law does not apply to rockets in a vacuum needs to validated by such an experiment . Otherwise your spouting bs .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2020, 10:54:24 AM
iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum? Your claim that Joules 2nd law does not apply to rockets in a vacuum needs to validated by such an experiment . Otherwise your spouting bs .

No. If there is a history over 50 years or so of craft being operated in space, with independent third-party verification, then there's no need for the "experiment" to show this.

Humankind has been operating submarines for ... what, 70 years or so?  Is there a scientific experiment, performed outwith the ocean, to show that a full-size submarine will operate in the ocean depths? No, there is not. The builders simply took the principles of smaller craft and scaled them up. We now have years of evidence that they do operate at depth

We also have almost 60 years of history showing that rockets do operate in space. With multiple third-party verifications. The absence of a bench test to show this does not disprove anything.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 09, 2020, 02:33:23 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?

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

Somerled, I believe that the burned of proof is in your court (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat). There have been many demonstrations of rocket motors working in vacuums if 50% to 90% and yes they are repeatable. There also been demonstrations of bullets being fires in a vacuum, i.e. work being done, mass being ejected. As previously stated the Joule's vacuum experiment is not analogous to a rocket in a vacuum, in as much space is an open system.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 09, 2020, 04:28:19 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?

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

Somerled, I believe that the burned of proof is in your court (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat). There have been many demonstrations of rocket motors working in vacuums if 50% to 90% and yes they are repeatable. There also been demonstrations of bullets being fires in a vacuum, i.e. work being done, mass being ejected. As previously stated the Joule's vacuum experiment is not analogous to a rocket in a vacuum, in as much space is an open system.
As previously stated by whom - a scientist?
I do not dispute that bullets can be fired in a vacuum . Demonstrations  are not scientifically controlled experiments , however 90% vacuum is equivalent to about 50,000 feet barometric pressure - hardly the depths of space - so a smaller nozzle area may well produce thrust .  But the laws of physics include Joules 2nd law of thermodynamics and a rocket engine will not produce thrust in a vacuum according to those laws.

Which scientific experiment allows iCare to state that these laws don't apply to a rocket in a vacuum ?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 09, 2020, 05:21:48 PM
Which scientific experiment allows iCare to state that these laws don't apply to a rocket in a vacuum ?

The laws of motion.
The first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.
The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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?
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

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 09, 2020, 06:02:27 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?

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

Somerled, I believe that the burned of proof is in your court (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat). There have been many demonstrations of rocket motors working in vacuums if 50% to 90% and yes they are repeatable. There also been demonstrations of bullets being fires in a vacuum, i.e. work being done, mass being ejected. As previously stated the Joule's vacuum experiment is not analogous to a rocket in a vacuum, in as much space is an open system.
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 09, 2020, 06:15:22 PM
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

This might be relevant. Here is a snippet from (http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1515)

"Let’s look at another example, the chemical rocket. The rocket works by throwing mass out of the back at high velocity. It is expelling mass past the system boundaries (the rocket) into its environment (space). By Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the rocket moves forward.

So the chemical rocket is clearly an open system….. unless you expand the system borders to include the entire universe. Then the rocket becomes a closed system because it can move about within the expanded system but that movement does not provide a net momentum change to the system (the entire universe and everything in it). All forces are now internal to the expanded system"

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 09, 2020, 06:32:27 PM
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

This might be relevant. Here is a snippet from (http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1515)

"Let’s look at another example, the chemical rocket. The rocket works by throwing mass out of the back at high velocity. It is expelling mass past the system boundaries (the rocket) into its environment (space). By Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the rocket moves forward.

So the chemical rocket is clearly an open system….. unless you expand the system borders to include the entire universe. Then the rocket becomes a closed system because it can move about within the expanded system but that movement does not provide a net momentum change to the system (the entire universe and everything in it). All forces are now internal to the expanded system"

Typical forum bs taking no notice of the laws of physics and devoid of scientific description of processes involved.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 09, 2020, 06:34:21 PM
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.
An explanation would be nice, supporting references even better.
Which scientists claimed it and what did they actually say?

Last time I looked (at the theory of it), rockets in space were pretty much open to a whole lot of "nothing", aka vacuum.

And as long as the rocket and all of space aren't one closed container (not the rocket enclosed in space, but both forming one container) Joule's Law will still not apply.
And even then:
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.
As explained, you don't meet the "closed container" criterion and even if you would, you haven't addressed the other two requirements.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2020, 06:47:03 PM
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

Which ones?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on March 09, 2020, 09:46:02 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?

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

Somerled, I believe that the burned of proof is in your court (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat). There have been many demonstrations of rocket motors working in vacuums if 50% to 90% and yes they are repeatable. There also been demonstrations of bullets being fires in a vacuum, i.e. work being done, mass being ejected. As previously stated the Joule's vacuum experiment is not analogous to a rocket in a vacuum, in as much space is an open system.
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

I'm not sure why this is such a mystery as there is a fundamental difference between the two 'systems'. See if you can spot it:

(https://i.imgur.com/vIgMvAt.png)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 10, 2020, 10:53:29 AM
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

This might be relevant. Here is a snippet from (http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1515)

"Let’s look at another example, the chemical rocket. The rocket works by throwing mass out of the back at high velocity. It is expelling mass past the system boundaries (the rocket) into its environment (space). By Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the rocket moves forward.

So the chemical rocket is clearly an open system….. unless you expand the system borders to include the entire universe. Then the rocket becomes a closed system because it can move about within the expanded system but that movement does not provide a net momentum change to the system (the entire universe and everything in it). All forces are now internal to the expanded system"
"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)..."
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion
 (https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion)
Do you know what an open system is?

An open system is one where energy and matter are exchanged.

A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

A rocket is a closed system.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2020, 11:03:57 AM
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

... so it cannot be "pushing off air", then.

The air is outside the rocket. The rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

No?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 10, 2020, 11:04:47 AM
iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum?
  • 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 10, 2020, 11:52:34 AM
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

... so it cannot be "pushing off air", then.

The air is outside the rocket. The rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

No?
Are you confusing me with someone else?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 10, 2020, 11:54:48 AM
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

... so it cannot be "pushing off air", then.

The air is outside the rocket. The rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

No?
Are you confusing me with someone else?

Possibly. I thought it was you who earlier claimed "rockets push off (the resistance of) air" but maybe not.

I'll review previous threads.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 10, 2020, 11:57:25 AM
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

... so it cannot be "pushing off air", then.

The air is outside the rocket. The rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.

No?
Are you confusing me with someone else?

Possibly. I thought it was you who earlier claimed "rockets push off (the resistance of) air" but maybe not.

I'll review previous threads.
Besides, let's just examine your statement, "pushing off air..." as somehow indicative of deriving energy from an outside source.

Because it isn't.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 10, 2020, 08:43:10 PM
"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)..."
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion
 (https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion)A rocket is a closed system.
Let me highlight some relevant words:
"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)..."

Illustration from the book you linked:
(https://openstax.org/resources/0c949e54c00df0a69f2a4c23c8087e276c334ca8)

This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
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.
Clever definition of "systems" is a legitimate approach to make calculations or solving a problem easier.
As momentum does not care about volume/heat and the vacuum does not interact with mass and force, this would seem to be a valid assumption when looking at Newton's Laws.
Pretty much what has been stated before to prove that rockets will work in a vacuum.

Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?

On a side note: the requirements for Joule Expansion are still not met.

Do you know what an open system is?
Yes, I do.

An open system is one where energy and matter are exchanged.
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.
A rocket does not derive energy/matter from outside, but it expels energy/matter to the outside -  in or out, it's still an exchange.

A rocket is a closed system.
A rocket itself is an open system as it expels hot gas (mass and energy).
If you want to treat "rocket + fuel" as a closed system in a vacuum in other respects than force, you would need to address energy/heat and volume ... how would you do that?

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 11, 2020, 10:10:33 AM
"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)..."
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion
 (https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/9-7-rocket-propulsion)A rocket is a closed system.
Let me highlight some relevant words:
"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)..."

Illustration from the book you linked:
(https://openstax.org/resources/0c949e54c00df0a69f2a4c23c8087e276c334ca8)

This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
Yes, it does.

A rocket is all a rocket is.
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.
Clever definition of "systems" is a legitimate approach to make calculations or solving a problem easier.
As momentum does not care about volume/heat and the vacuum does not interact with mass and force, this would seem to be a valid assumption when looking at Newton's Laws.
Pretty much what has been stated before to prove that rockets will work in a vacuum.

Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?
I am not the one left to explain videos, clearly proving a rocket will not work in a vacuum, somehow do prove a rocket will work in a vacuum.

On a side note: the requirements for Joule Expansion are still not met.
Do you know what an open system is?
Yes, I do.
Well, that is good.

Perhaps explain to thor's evil twin, because it is apparent he doesn't.
An open system is one where energy and matter are exchanged.
A rocket derives no energy from outside of itself.
A rocket does not derive energy/matter from outside, but it expels energy/matter to the outside -  in or out, it's still an exchange.
Well, it is apparent you do not even know how how to define the word," exchange."
A rocket is a closed system.
A rocket itself is an open system as it expels hot gas (mass and energy).
If you want to treat "rocket + fuel" as a closed system in a vacuum in other respects than force, you would need to address energy/heat and volume ... how would you do that?

iC
Wrong.

A rocket is a closed system.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 11, 2020, 11:20:47 AM
This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
Yes, it does.
A rocket is all a rocket is.
Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?

The source says, as you quoted: "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system."
The system is explicitly defined as "rocket + fuel" and "this" system is then considered closed for the purpose of calculating momentum/acceleration.
It does not say, that the rocket itself is a closed system.
It also doesn't say, that the defined system "rocket + fuel" can be considered closed under any circumstance - that is only true for the assumptions made.

Would you also say, that fuel or passengers are part of a car?
So when you're running on empty or someone gets out, your car is missing parts?
There are different valid definitions for systems in a given setting; however, some are more useful (or expedient) than others.
In that sense a car is not necessarily a car and a rocket is not a rocket. It depends what has been defined and once defined, you have to stick with that definition for the time being.
So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?

Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?
I am not the one left to explain videos, clearly proving a rocket will not work in a vacuum, somehow do prove a rocket will work in a vacuum.
Did I reference videos? I don't think so.
I was referring to the explanations, how conservation of energy and momentum would require rockets to work in a vacuum.
Are you bringing up videos again to deflect from your inability to construct a fault in the open/closed system discussion?

Changing the scope of the system doesn't change the fact, that rockets work in a vacuum, it simply changes your view of the problem.

Perhaps explain to thor's evil twin, because it is apparent he doesn't.
Actually it's quite apparent, that you do not understand how systems can be defined, what the theory behind different types of systems is and how that can be applied in science.
Where do you get the idea, that thors_evil_twin doesn't understand?
He appears to have a much better grasp of the issue than you do.
Please point to where you think he's wrong?

Well, it is apparent you do not even know how how to define the word," exchange."
Obviously appearances are deceiving ... what do you think is my definition of the word "exchange" and why would it be wrong?

A rocket is a closed system.
Kind of depends on your definition of "rocket". As defined by the source you quoted, it is only a closed system, when you include the fuel (inside the rocket and after being expelled) and only under the circumstances given.

In any case, this does not affect if a rocket works in a vacuum or not.
So what is your point, except being contradictory without providing substantiating facts or reason?

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 11, 2020, 11:41:41 AM
This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
Yes, it does.
A rocket is all a rocket is.
Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?
If you understand the word dense to mean specific and to the point, then yes.
The source says, as you quoted: "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system."
The system is explicitly defined as "rocket + fuel" and "this" system is then considered closed for the purpose of calculating momentum/acceleration.
It does not say, that the rocket itself is a closed system.
It also doesn't say, that the defined system "rocket + fuel" can be considered closed under any circumstance - that is only true for the assumptions made.
A rocket is a closed system.

You stated earlier you understood what a closed system is, but it seems I erroneously allowed that claim to go unchallenged, as you are now revealing your claim of understanding to be false.
Would you also say, that fuel or passengers are part of a car?
What does a car have to do with rockets?

Answer - nothing...

A car needs the intake of air to operate and is not a closed system.
So when you're running on empty or someone gets out, your car is missing parts?
There are different valid definitions for systems in a given setting; however, some are more useful (or expedient) than others.
In that sense a car is not necessarily a car and a rocket is not a rocket. It depends what has been defined and once defined, you have to stick with that definition for the time being.
So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?
I posted my source.

Please try to gain a semblance of understanding of that source before asking superfluous questions.
Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?
I am not the one left to explain videos, clearly proving a rocket will not work in a vacuum, somehow do prove a rocket will work in a vacuum.
Did I reference videos? I don't think so.
Of course you didn't...

...except to CLAIM those videos, which clearly prove rockets do not work in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...

...somehow PROVE rockets will work in a vacuum...

...because of...

...reasons...
I was referring to the explanations, how conservation of energy and momentum would require rockets to work in a vacuum.
Are you bringing up videos again to deflect from your inability to construct a fault in the open/closed system discussion?
No, I am bringing up the videos again to show the speciousness of your argument.
Changing the scope of the system doesn't change the fact, that rockets work in a vacuum, it simply changes your view of the problem.
Defining the system IS science.

Of which you need further education.
Perhaps explain to thor's evil twin, because it is apparent he doesn't.
Actually it's quite apparent, that you do not understand how systems can be defined, what the theory behind different types of systems is and how that can be applied in science.
Where do you get the idea, that thors_evil_twin doesn't understand?
He appears to have a much better grasp of the issue than you do.
Please point to where you think he's wrong?
Like I wrote earlier, you have no clue what constitutes an open or closed system.

You want to introduce cars as a comparison...

Forget I asked you to explain anything to anyone.

I will amend my request to ask you to not explain anything to anyone, however.
Well, it is apparent you do not even know how how to define the word," exchange."
Obviously appearances are deceiving ... what do you think is my definition of the word "exchange" and why would it be wrong?
Whatever your definition is, it is apparent it doesn't match the actual definition.
A rocket is a closed system.
Kind of depends on your definition of "rocket". As defined by the source you quoted, it is only a closed system, when you include the fuel (inside the rocket and after being expelled) and only under the circumstances given.

In any case, this does not affect if a rocket works in a vacuum or not.
So what is your point, except being contradictory without providing substantiating facts or reason?

iC
The substantiating facts and evidence for a rocket not working in a vacuum are all here...

Multiple videos of rockets not working in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...

All provided by proponents of rockets working in a vacuum...

The case for rockets working in a vacuum clearly shot down by its champions...

Case closed...next victim...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 11, 2020, 12:24:54 PM
Propulsion of rocket engine according to the laws of physics , step by step , under atmos pressure and then in a vacuum .

1 . Exothermic chemical reaction - burn of rocket fuel - produces thermal energy . At this stage I will point out that thermal energy , heat , is NOT a force .Thermodynamics . Rocket will not be accelerated until a force is applied Newtons 1st law

2. Production of force - occurs when thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy ( all heat exchange engines work on this principle ) as expansion of hot gas encounters resistance of air pressure . Once the internal chamber pressure exceeds outer pressure then gas forces out into the atmos layer. Newtons 2nd law . We have a force .

3. Thrust produced in accordance with  Newtons 3rd law . Equal and opposite to force produced in step 2 . Hot gas accelerated out , thrust produced perpendicular to this provides acceleration of rocket in opposite direction .

4. Acceleration will occur as long as thermal energy is produced and is able to be converted to kinetic energy by an outer pressure .

Under vacuum conditions

1. Exothermic chemical reaction produces thermal energy ( assuming this reaction can occur under vacuum conditions ).

2. Step two does not occur . No force produced since thermal energy will expand freely into the vacuum Joules second law of thermodynamics. Thermal energy remains as thermal energy and does not convert to kinetic energy and hence no force manifests .

Joules proved in his vacuum experiment that thermal energy is not a force , no work can be done since a vacuum provides no method of conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy.

The idea that Newton's 3rd law can take over and provide thrust is untenable - a scientifically unsubstantiated claim  , since thermal energy is not a force and cannot convert to kinetic energy in a vacuum. Newton 3rd is a reaction to Newton's 2nd .
 

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 11, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Propulsion of rocket engine according to the laws of physics , step by step , under atmos pressure and then in a vacuum .
Thank you for the detailed description. It is, however, what has been described before and still shows the the same faults, which I have pointed out repeatedly and which you keep ignoring.

1 . Exothermic chemical reaction - burn of rocket fuel - produces thermal energy . At this stage I will point out that thermal energy , heat , is NOT a force .Thermodynamics .
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster))
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

Regardless, let me address some of your arguments in detail:

2. Production of force - occurs when thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy ( all heat exchange engines work on this principle ) as expansion of hot gas encounters resistance of air pressure . Once the internal chamber pressure exceeds outer pressure then gas forces out into the atmos layer. Newtons 2nd law . We have a force .
What exactly are you referring to as a heat exchange engine?
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.

Under vacuum conditions
There is still no reason, why the process should be any different in a vacuum. What you claim to be different (no conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy) is not a relevant aspect to a rocket engine.
The gas is expelled, because it simply becomes more, not because it expands due to getting hotter.
And even if it became hotter, that would disallow the use of Joule's Law, as Joule's Law requires constant temperature.

2. Step two does not occur . No force produced since thermal energy will expand freely into the vacuum Joules second law of thermodynamics. Thermal energy remains as thermal energy and does not convert to kinetic energy and hence no force manifests .

Joules proved in his vacuum experiment that thermal energy is not a force , no work can be done since a vacuum provides no method of conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy.
Joule's Law still doesn't apply, as the amount of gas is dramatically increased, whereas Joule's Law requires a constant amount of gas.
As the kinetic energy isn't created by converting heat in the first place (see above), your reasoning is built on wrong assumptions and therefore void.


iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 11, 2020, 03:44:50 PM
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.

iC
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 11, 2020, 03:55:25 PM
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...
You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

Like this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1_sMaMcLG8

It deals with explosives and high explosives, but the same principles apply.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 11, 2020, 04:01:13 PM
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

Well by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidizer is the short answer. Possible fuels are kerosene, alcohol, hydrazine and its derivatives, and liquid hydrogen and the oxydizers could be nitric acid, nitrogen tetroxide, liquid oxygen, and liquid fluorine.

Here is the long answer for you to ignore.

From (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/rocket.html)
"In a rocket engine , fuel and a source of oxygen, called an oxidizer, are mixed and exploded in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces hot exhaust which is passed through a nozzle to accelerate the flow and produce thrust. ... There are two main categories of rocket engines; liquid rockets and solid rockets."

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 11, 2020, 04:18:28 PM
Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?
If you understand the word dense to mean specific and to the point, then yes.
Actually I was thinking of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dense (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dense) 2a:  "slow to understand"
I'm still waiting for a "specific and to the point" reaction to most of my arguments.

You stated earlier you understood what a closed system is, but it seems I erroneously allowed that claim to go unchallenged, as you are now revealing your claim of understanding to be false.
In what way? Please be specific ...

What does a car have to do with rockets?
Answer - nothing...
Correct answer: It was a simile for how systems can be defined.

A car needs the intake of air to operate and is not a closed system.
Well ... so what, if it gets the air from a container inside the car?

So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?
I posted my source.
You posted your source, but what you are posting is in conflict with that source.

Please try to gain a semblance of understanding of that source before asking superfluous questions.
Source:  "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel"
You: "A rocket is all a rocket is."
Please stop doubting my understanding without substantiating that claim (which is a cheap trick, shame on you), when you're obviously misquoting your own source at the same time.

Of course you didn't...
...except to CLAIM those videos, which clearly prove rockets do not work in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...
...somehow PROVE rockets will work in a vacuum...
...because of...
...reasons...
Please reread my postes, it would seem you have misunderstood them.
I didn't say the videos prove rockets would work in a vacuum: I said, they show that rockets work in very low pressure and that indicates, they would work in a vacuum as well.
I have given "specific and to the point" reasons in the respective posts.

Defining  he system IS science.
It is. And systems can be defined in different - valid - ways. Same science, different perspective/approach.

Of which you need further education.
I do embrace livelong learning, that's why I enjoy this discussion despite your aggressive and impolite manner.
I have substantiated my claims, you haven't - once again, I recommend you take your own advice.

Whatever your definition is, it is apparent it doesn't match the actual definition.
"Whatever" could be exactly the actual definition. So, care to share, what you perceive as the "actual definition"?
This would be a great opportunity to be "specific and to the point".

Case closed...next victim...
If it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that you closed the case and you were in the right.

The rockets won't care, they'll just keep working.
By name iCare, because it is sad to see you clinging to misinterpretation and error in judgement, when several people are going above and beyond to explain things in a sensible manner. 

iC

Edited to remove potentially offensive quote/wording
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 11, 2020, 05:18:44 PM
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...
Just for giggles, I can imagine two fun ways to create gas:
The process for (1) is quite enjoyable, but the product (gas) has as a certain ... odor.
The process for (2) is rather tedious and the product (responses) is often somewhat tasteless.

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....
What exactly are you asking? How about thors_evil_twin's answer, as he was quicker to respond?
Well by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidizer is the short answer. Possible fuels are kerosene, alcohol, hydrazine and its derivatives, and liquid hydrogen and the oxydizers could be nitric acid, nitrogen tetroxide, liquid oxygen, and liquid fluorine.
If you google "rocket propellant" or fuels in general, there are plenty of detailed descriptions, which fuels can be used and how efficient they are.
Efficiency is, however, not an issue here. An inefficient rocket will still work.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 11, 2020, 10:11:51 PM

Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster))
[/quote]
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?


iC
[/quote]

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force . That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Somehow you believe the same pressurised gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Very amusing .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on March 11, 2020, 11:23:47 PM
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster))
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

iC
[/quote]

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force . That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Somehow you believe the same pressurised gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Very amusing .

First off, learn to work quoting. You're a mess when it comes to that.

Secondly, and I'm not sure why this is lost, what is the result of thermal energy? What might it have done? Where did it go? Do tell.

Thirdly, no one in the pantheon of rocket scientists has ever claimed "work is done" in a vacuum. Reason being, it's not required. No work needs to be done in a vacuum.

When you can cite any respectable, peer reviewed paper that claims rockets can't work in a vacuum, I'll listen. In the mean time, you are fringe at best, mostly a delighted devotee clutching to a law of physics that to the lay and conspiratorially predisposed is considered luscious in its "no work is done" motif. It sucks to be only of the partially informed and learned. Cling to one axiom, dismiss another when convenient to Dunning–Kruger your way into and out of an argument. It's all quite sapping and extraordinarily absent of logic.

Carry on.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: flatearther633 on March 11, 2020, 11:29:03 PM
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

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

Hey bozo. You can't different levels of gravity. Your theories are stupid. Please stop. Get a life.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 12, 2020, 07:32:31 AM
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster))
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

iC

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force . That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Somehow you believe the same pressurised gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Very amusing .

First off, learn to work quoting. You're a mess when it comes to that.

Secondly, and I'm not sure why this is lost, what is the result of thermal energy? What might it have done? Where did it go? Do tell.

Thirdly, no one in the pantheon of rocket scientists has ever claimed "work is done" in a vacuum. Reason being, it's not required. No work needs to be done in a vacuum.

When you can cite any respectable, peer reviewed paper that claims rockets can't work in a vacuum, I'll listen. In the mean time, you are fringe at best, mostly a delighted devotee clutching to a law of physics that to the lay and conspiratorially predisposed is considered luscious in its "no work is done" motif. It sucks to be only of the partially informed and learned. Cling to one axiom, dismiss another when convenient to Dunning–Kruger your way into and out of an argument. It's all quite sapping and extraordinarily absent of logic.

Carry on.
[/quote]

Peer reviewed - Joules 2nd law of thermodynamics pertaining to expansion of gas into a vacuum (which include the vacuum of space). All of Newton's laws  1,2,3 .

Your going to have to show the experiment with peer reviewed paper showing that these laws do not apply to rocket engines in a vacuum. That is all you have to do .

Show the physical process by which thermal energy , which is NOT a force , is converted to kinetic energy in order to provide an active force and hence the reactive force of thrust in accordance with the laws of physics.

Cold gas thruster system is just Joules experiment in space ,just look at the design . Maybe those mini  satellite systems are not so high up . Thrust can be produced in reduced pressure since it is dependant on nozzle area - but never in a vacuum .

Now all of that can be debated but a law of physics is a law of physics . Nasa knows this but must maintain it's stance that it can create a kinetic force of acceleration in a vacuum without converting thermal energy to kinetic in violation of the laws of physics .

You could tutor me on "quoting " if you like but it aint a priority for me . I usually just ignore walls of repetitive bs and sophistry.

 

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 10:39:22 AM
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Right here, you contradict yourself.

Explain how a rocket converts its fuel to gas, if not by thermal energy conversion.


Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 12, 2020, 11:21:42 AM
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Right here, you contradict yourself.

It's only a contraction if you take it out of context and if don't understand the process as a whole.
So let me reiterate:

Rocket fuel undergoes a exothermic chemical reaction producing (among other things) gas and heat.
That produced gas requires a significantly larger volume than the fuel did. => increased pressure in the reaction chamber.
Also the gas is a lot hotter than the fuel was, intensifying the effect . => even more increase of pressure in the reaction chamber.
The pressure inside the rocket is much higher than outside the rocket. => gas (which has mass) gets expelled at high speed.
=> the rocket accordingly accelerates in the opposite direction.

My original point was, that Newton's Laws make a rocket work in any environment; Newton's Laws aren't about thermal energy (but they work side by side).
Thrust is created by expelling mass; the energy to power this process is created as described above.
But you could also accelerate a rocket by ejecting bricks or firing a "Gatling gun" mounted on it ... or anything that accelerates mass away from the rocket, regardless of thermal energy being part of it or not.

Newton is happy, Joule is happy, the rocket happily speeds away ...

Explain how a rocket converts its fuel to gas, if not by thermal energy conversion.
Like any other chemical process of burning fuel?
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all. As we are talking about exothermic reactions and "hot gas" (see above) it obviously is.
Still thrust is created by expelling mass. Thermal energy is simply part of what's powering that process.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 11:32:35 AM
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
Oh...
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 12, 2020, 11:40:17 AM
iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

Unsurprisingly all of Newton's Laws apply to a cold gas thruster; including the 3rd law, which requires the rocket to accelerate in the opposite direction the gas is accelerating.
Which leads to the same conflict you haven't been able to solve: Newton requires the rocket to work in a vacuum, your (faulty) interpretation of Joule's Law suggests they don't.
So, what is your point?

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force .
And - for the inverse process - when a gas "uncompresses" it cools down, releasing the stored energy.
How does that matsch with Joule's Law of Free Expansion - as that claims gas expanding into a vacuum would not change its temperature (aka "no work done")?

That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .
No, it is not.
Free expansion requires a fixed amount of gas in a closed container.
A thruster - by definition - is not closed.

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Joule: fixed amount of gas, closed/mesurable volume, no change in temperature, isolated container, gas released
=> His law does not describe what you are trying to apply it to.

Somehow you believe the same pressurized gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?
Rocket: changing amount of gas, open/unlimited volume, change in temperature, open container, gas ejected
=> It is not "the same" pressurized gas.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 12, 2020, 12:07:58 PM
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.

As explained, that statement was in the specific context of thrust being created by expelling mass and the fact, that there are other ways than combustion (conversion of thermal energy) to power rocket engines .
I'm sorry, if my focusing on the creation of thrust itself (i.e. expelling mass) gave the impression that thermal energy couldn't be involved in the  overall process for a combustion powered rocket.

Regardless of this misunderstanding ... how would that have any impact on rockets working in a vacuum or not?

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 02:07:23 PM
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.

As explained, that statement was in the specific context of thrust being created by expelling mass and the fact, that there are other ways than combustion (conversion of thermal energy) to power rocket engines .
I'm sorry, if my focusing on the creation of thrust itself (i.e. expelling mass) gave the impression that thermal energy couldn't be involved in the  overall process for a combustion powered rocket.

Regardless of this misunderstanding ... how would that have any impact on rockets working in a vacuum or not?

iC
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 12, 2020, 02:25:09 PM
Like this???

https://youtu.be/_xvVJQSGHts?t=289

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 12, 2020, 02:46:48 PM
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?
As explained before, just like you "throw" into anything else.
In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".
Basically the same process for vacuum and atmosphere.

One difference would be, that it is easier to do in a vacuum, as one wouldn't have to overcome external pressure to exit the reaction chamber.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 03:01:09 PM
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?
As explained before, just like you "throw" into anything else.
In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".
Basically the same process for vacuum and atmosphere.

One difference would be, that it is easier to do in a vacuum, as one wouldn't have to overcome external pressure to exit the reaction chamber.

iC
You just admitted Joule's Law.

Congratulations!

Which states W=pv.

Gas, when ejected into a vacuum, does 0 work.

Got another 2 questions for you...

When are you going to admit a rocket is a closed system, as depicted in the source I provided?

Do you agree that a jet engine and a rocket engine are essentially the same thing, performing the same functions, the exception being the rocket carries its own oxidizers, requiring no intakes?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2020, 03:13:54 PM
GaryGreen kindly told me that free expansion can't do volume work, but that gas in a vacuum is perfectly capable of doing other kinds of work.  Seeing as he is an actual physicist and not a layperson, I am happy to trust him (and the thousands of other scientists that worked on the rocket program) over a layperson, like Total Lackey.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 12, 2020, 03:22:16 PM
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

By setting it in motion, such that it moves from (say) Point A to (say) Point B.

Do you see some difficulty or obstacle preventing this?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 03:29:51 PM
GaryGreen kindly told me that free expansion can't do volume work, but that gas in a vacuum is perfectly capable of doing other kinds of work.  Seeing as he is an actual physicist and not a layperson, I am happy to trust him (and the thousands of other scientists that worked on the rocket program) over a layperson, like Total Lackey.
Seeing as garygreen, supposedly a physicist, would tell you a lie, then I would find someone else to latch onto...

Ask gary to explain how gas does any work except by "volume," in turn, pressure...

Why would gary suggest an experiment that was designed specifically to confirm conservation of energy (and thereby conservation of momentum) could somehow defy it?

A rocket is a pressurized container of gas.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurized gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

The experiment is named after the guy whose name is also used as a measurement of force.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 03:30:56 PM
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

By setting it in motion, such that it moves from (say) Point A to (say) Point B.

Do you see some difficulty or obstacle preventing this?
Yeah I do.

Show me otherwise.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2020, 03:31:37 PM
GaryGreen kindly told me that free expansion can't do volume work, but that gas in a vacuum is perfectly capable of doing other kinds of work.  Seeing as he is an actual physicist and not a layperson, I am happy to trust him (and the thousands of other scientists that worked on the rocket program) over a layperson, like Total Lackey.
Seeing as garygreen, supposedly a physicist, would tell you a lie, then I would find someone else to latch onto...

Seems more likely that you are just wrong.

Quote
Ask gary to explain how gas does any work except by "volume," in turn, pressure...

Why would gary suggest an experiment that was designed specifically to confirm conservation of energy (and thereby conservation of momentum) could somehow defy it?

A rocket is a pressurized container of gas.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurized gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

The experiment is named after the guy whose name is also used as a measurement of force.

I would recommend you talk to Gary.  I don't need to talk to him to once again debunk your position.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 03:35:14 PM
GaryGreen kindly told me that free expansion can't do volume work, but that gas in a vacuum is perfectly capable of doing other kinds of work.  Seeing as he is an actual physicist and not a layperson, I am happy to trust him (and the thousands of other scientists that worked on the rocket program) over a layperson, like Total Lackey.
Seeing as garygreen, supposedly a physicist, would tell you a lie, then I would find someone else to latch onto...

Seems more likely that you are just wrong.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, not the facts.

Quote
Ask gary to explain how gas does any work except by "volume," in turn, pressure...

Why would gary suggest an experiment that was designed specifically to confirm conservation of energy (and thereby conservation of momentum) could somehow defy it?

A rocket is a pressurized container of gas.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurized gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

The experiment is named after the guy whose name is also used as a measurement of force.

I would recommend you talk to Gary.  I don't need to talk to him to once again debunk your position.
You don't need to talk to him.

You haven't debunked anything.

Neither has he.

In closing:

Ask gary to explain how gas does any work except by "volume," in turn, pressure...

Why would gary suggest an experiment that was designed specifically to confirm conservation of energy (and thereby conservation of momentum) could somehow defy it?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2020, 03:46:02 PM
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, not the facts.

As is anyone.  Not sure what point you think you are making.  There is a mountain of evidence that runs contrary to your misguided assertions.  In this case, the facts are on my side.

Quote
You don't need to talk to him.

You haven't debunked anything.

Neither has he.

Weird that you asked me to talk to him then.  Anyway, just dropped in to say hi.  Carry on!
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 12, 2020, 03:50:59 PM
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, not the facts.

As is anyone.  Not sure what point you think you are making.  There is a mountain of evidence that runs contrary to your misguided assertions.  In this case, the facts are on my side.
Actually, all the evidence here (i.e., the videos evidence, something you dearly love) runs counter to your position.

I suggest you look at it again.
Quote
You don't need to talk to him.

You haven't debunked anything.

Neither has he.
Weird that you asked me to talk to him then.  Anyway, just dropped in to say hi.  Carry on!
You asked me to talk to him.

I suggested you go back and ask him why he lied to you.

I don't need to talk to him, because if he truly told you what you claim, then he lied.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 12, 2020, 04:10:22 PM
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

By setting it in motion, such that it moves from (say) Point A to (say) Point B.

Do you see some difficulty or obstacle preventing this?
Yeah I do.

Show me otherwise.

You want me to show you that you see some difficulty or obstacle?

How do I do this, without you telling me what difficulty or obstacle you see?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 12, 2020, 04:54:07 PM
A rocket is a pressurized container of gas.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurized gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
The experiment is named after the guy whose name is also used as a measurement of force.

Reviewing this image below ... How are the two scenarios equal to one another? In the rocket scenario where is the container that is required for it to be equatable to Joule's expansion experiment?
(https://i.imgur.com/vIgMvAt.png)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 12, 2020, 05:38:21 PM
In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".
You just admitted Joule's Law.
I have never doubted Joule's Law. I'm simply pointing out, that it does not apply to the way rockets work. Specifically it does not prevent them from working in a vacuum.
For the detailed explanation, see my previous posts.

When are you going to admit a rocket is a closed system, as depicted in the source I provided?
I have already answered that:
This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
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.
Clever definition of "systems" is a legitimate approach to make calculations or solving a problem easier.
As momentum does not care about volume/heat and the vacuum does not interact with mass and force, this would seem to be a valid assumption when looking at Newton's Laws.
I don't have an issue with the definition as depicted in the source you provided.
For calculating acceleration the assumption of a closed system as described seems to be a valid approach leading to the conclusion, that a rocket will work in a vacuum.
My problem was - and still is - that you are not specific about what you define as "rocket"?
Is it the same as in the source  (with/without fuel/exhaust/...?) and what conclusions you draw from that?

Do you agree that a jet engine and a rocket engine are essentially the same thing, performing the same functions, the exception being the rocket carries its own oxidizers, requiring no intakes?
This sounds like one of those directional/suggestive questions that try to (mis-)lead you on a specific path ... but let's see where you want to take us. Live's a journey.

It isn't as simple as that, but on a basic level I do agree.
Both are internal combustion engines; burning fuel to create heat and gas (and/or other products of the chemical reaction) thereby creating thrust from the chemical energy stored in the fuel.
Rockets generally require no intake (generally, as rockets can be air-augmented). On the other hand, let me point out, that the oxidizer is only part of why jet engines require an intake.
So the requirement of an intake is by far not the only and not necessarily the most signifikant difference between rockets and jet engines (as used e.g. for airplanes).
The details of the process are quite different for both.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: junker on March 12, 2020, 06:36:13 PM
You asked me to talk to him.

I suggested you go back and ask him why he lied to you.

I don't need to talk to him, because if he truly told you what you claim, then he lied.

This meme of yours is super fun and all, but you really need to keep trash like this in CN/AR. Next one is going to be a very long vacation.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 13, 2020, 11:10:37 AM
A rocket is a pressurized container of gas.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurized gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
The experiment is named after the guy whose name is also used as a measurement of force.

Reviewing this image below ... How are the two scenarios equal to one another? In the rocket scenario where is the container that is required for it to be equatable to Joule's expansion experiment?
(https://i.imgur.com/vIgMvAt.png)
So, you believe space to be infinite?

Outer space is reported to be as close to a perfect vacuum (known to man).

Aside from that, please describe how a boundary-less container would somehow have a cancelling effect...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 13, 2020, 11:13:24 AM
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

By setting it in motion, such that it moves from (say) Point A to (say) Point B.

Do you see some difficulty or obstacle preventing this?
Yeah I do.

Show me otherwise.

You want me to show you that you see some difficulty or obstacle?

How do I do this, without you telling me what difficulty or obstacle you see?
I have already stated the difficulty Tumeni...and I am sure you have read it.

The difficulty I see is that gas, when released to a vacuum, does 0 work.

All the video evidence posted here proves that very fact.

You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

You cannot "throw gas," into a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 13, 2020, 11:41:10 AM
In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".
You just admitted Joule's Law.
I have never doubted Joule's Law. I'm simply pointing out, that it does not apply to the way rockets work. Specifically it does not prevent them from working in a vacuum.
For the detailed explanation, see my previous posts.
Forgive me, I have reviewed your previous posts.

They do not provide a detailed explanation.

Neither are they based on science.

They offer quite a bit of personal opinion and speculation, not based on the visual evidence present in this thread, nor on the written science.

Perhaps if you label them in a 1,2 ,3 fashion, we could review them again.
When are you going to admit a rocket is a closed system, as depicted in the source I provided?
I have already answered that:
This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
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.
Clever definition of "systems" is a legitimate approach to make calculations or solving a problem easier.
As momentum does not care about volume/heat and the vacuum does not interact with mass and force, this would seem to be a valid assumption when looking at Newton's Laws.
I don't have an issue with the definition as depicted in the source you provided.
For calculating acceleration the assumption of a closed system as described seems to be a valid approach leading to the conclusion, that a rocket will work in a vacuum.
My problem was - and still is - that you are not specific about what you define as "rocket"?
Is it the same as in the source  (with/without fuel/exhaust/...?) and what conclusions you draw from that?
My conclusion from the source I provided is that it still somehow lacks a force pair.
Do you agree that a jet engine and a rocket engine are essentially the same thing, performing the same functions, the exception being the rocket carries its own oxidizers, requiring no intakes?
This sounds like one of those directional/suggestive questions that try to (mis-)lead you on a specific path ... but let's see where you want to take us. Live's a journey.

It isn't as simple as that, but on a basic level I do agree.
Both are internal combustion engines; burning fuel to create heat and gas (and/or other products of the chemical reaction) thereby creating thrust from the chemical energy stored in the fuel.
Rockets generally require no intake (generally, as rockets can be air-augmented). On the other hand, let me point out, that the oxidizer is only part of why jet engines require an intake.
So the requirement of an intake is by far not the only and not necessarily the most signifikant difference between rockets and jet engines (as used e.g. for airplanes).
The details of the process are quite different for both.

iC
I was specifically referring to how they move.

How do you think jets in the sky overhead move?

Do they move differently from rockets?

Please note, I am being specific.

I do not want to know how they stay aloft, nor do I want to know what kind of fuel they use.

I just want your scientific analysis...

Do jets accomplish movement differently from rockets?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 13, 2020, 12:49:48 PM
I have never doubted Joule's Law. I'm simply pointing out, that it does not apply to the way rockets work. Specifically it does not prevent them from working in a vacuum.
For the detailed explanation, see my previous posts.
Forgive me, I have reviewed your previous posts.
They do not provide a detailed explanation.
Neither are they based on science.
I think they do and they are, but let me sum it up (again):
Joule's Law describes that a constant amount of gas, freely expanding - at constant temperature - into a larger volume that previously contained a vacuum. Freely expanding,  does 0 work.
Makes sense.
In a rocket, the amount of gas and its temperature are both increasing, hence increasing pressure inside the rocket. => there is force (pressure), it is not freely expanding => does actual work
Should also make sense.

My conclusion from the source I provided is that it still somehow lacks a force pair.
From your source "The force on the spacecraft is equal to the rate of change of the momentum of the fuel."
The fuel (formerly in the rocket) is visibly ejected as exhaust (which has a mass) => it changes momentum (being ejected), that requires a force to be at work.
This requires a equal, opposing force, which accelerates the rocket.
=> There's you force pair.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 13, 2020, 12:58:38 PM
The difficulty I see is that gas, when released to a vacuum, does 0 work.
The gas, when propelled into a vacuum (or into an atmosphere) has momentum.
Rockets work by conservation of momentum.

Quote
You cannot "throw gas," into a vacuum.

Why not?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 13, 2020, 02:43:57 PM
The gas cannot be propelled unless a force is applied . Rockets are accelerated by reactive force of thrust .

Momentum is not a force .Conservation of momentum is not a force .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 13, 2020, 03:24:46 PM
The gas cannot be propelled unless a force is applied

Right. So if I may borrow the diagram from above:

(https://i.imgur.com/vIgMvAt.png)

You can surely see that when combustion occurs that accelerates the gas (a>0).
The gas obviously has mass. (m>0)
F=ma.
So force must be acting on the gas to accelerate it.
It's the explosive force of the combustion that propels the gas out of the rocket.

Quote
Momentum is not a force .Conservation of momentum is not a force.

Correct but irrelevant. The gas has mass and velocity and thus momentum, that is true regardless of the medium the gas is expelled in.
Newton says momentum is conserved. That's how rockets work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 13, 2020, 04:05:40 PM
Combustion will not occur in a vacuum .

Expanding gas in a vacuum does no work.

Newton did not say that momentum is conserved .

There is no "explosive force of combustion" - flowery language but not scientific. A fuel burn is an exothermic chemical reaction producing thermal energy which is not a force .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 13, 2020, 04:30:41 PM
Combustion will not occur in a vacuum.
You're going to have to tell hypergolic fuels that.

Quote
Newton did not say that momentum is conserved

It's a consequence of his 3rd law

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle

Quote
There is no "explosive force of combustion" - flowery language but not scientific. A fuel burn is an exothermic chemical reaction producing thermal energy which is not a force.
Call it what you like. It expels gas at high velocity out of the rocket. The gas has mass.
Momentum = mass x velocity.
Momentum is conserved.
Rockets work, regardless of the medium they're operating in.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 13, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
Combustion will not occur in a vacuum.
I'm still waiting for a valid explanation, why this should be the case.
When all required elements for fire/combustion are present (heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent) are present, combustion will occur.

Expanding gas in a vacuum does no work.
Gas freely expanding into a vacuum (as described by Joule's Law) does not "work".
Gas being expelled "with force" does "work". No conflict with Joule's Law.

Imagine dropping a bouncing ball in a ideal environment (no friction, etc.); just let it go, no force applied - it will return to the same height. ("No work done" ... the energy at the beginning is equal to the energy at the end.)
Now push that ball down; force applied - it will return to the same height plus the additional height equivalent to the energy you provided by pushing it down.
This is a simile; it's not to be taken literally and an it is not perfect. It does however illustrate the point.

There is no "explosive force of combustion" - flowery language but not scientific. A fuel burn is an exothermic chemical reaction producing thermal energy which is not a force .
As repeatedly stated, burning fuel does not only produce heat.
And while that thermal energy may not be a force by itself, it can create force, e.g. by heating gas (e.g. the gas created together with heat) and thereby pressure, which is a force.
That is the basic principle of internal combustion engines. Like Wikipedia or not, but it's described nicely there:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine)
"An internal combustion engine (ICE) is a heat engine in which the combustion of a fuel occurs with an oxidizer (usually air) in a combustion chamber that is an integral part of the working fluid flow circuit. In an internal combustion engine, the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases produced by combustion applies direct force to some component of the engine. The force is applied typically to pistons, turbine blades, rotor or a nozzle. This force moves the component over a distance, transforming chemical energy into useful work."

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 13, 2020, 05:32:45 PM
Your gonna have show hyperbollix in action in a vacuum.

Newton's third law states nothing about conservation of momentum . It's about forces , active and reactive.

All laws of physics are derived from repeatable scientific experiment - the none Newton "law of conservation of momentum " is not derived from experiment but merely derived by shifting meaningless symbols as shown in your link .

This "law " may relate to rockets in a pressurised environment but then It's superfluous since the real Newton's laws cover that

The fact is in a vacuum there is no force produced - covered by the real laws derived from Joules real experiment , so the first line of derivation of this "law" of conservation of momentum
            F1 = -F2 is a complete fabrication under vacuum since it would violate Joules law . It assumes forces where none are produced .

You could of course show the experiment that this crap is derived from but you won't find it . This very very important psuedo law is very important to keep up the pretence of the rocket to the moon rubbish .



Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 13, 2020, 06:35:58 PM
All laws of physics are derived from repeatable scientific experiment
covered by the real laws derived from Joules real experiment

I have said so before, I say so again:
Joule's experiment specifically requires constant temperature and a fixed amount of gas.
Both is not the case for rocket engines; Joules's experiment ist different from what creates thrust in a rocket.
=> Joule's Law is correct, validly derived from experiments. Your application of it is not, as you do not stay within the requirements set forth by Joule's experiment.
Or can you prove (by a repeatable scientific experiment?) that it is also true for increasing temperature and/or increasing amount of gas?

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:14:32 PM
All laws of physics are derived from repeatable scientific experiment
covered by the real laws derived from Joules real experiment

I have said so before, I say so again:
Joule's experiment specifically requires constant temperature and a fixed amount of gas.
As if a rocket doesn't have a fixed amount of gas available...
Both is not the case for rocket engines; Joules's experiment ist different from what creates thrust in a rocket.
=> Joule's Law is correct, validly derived from experiments. Your application of it is not, as you do not stay within the requirements set forth by Joule's experiment.
Or can you prove (by a repeatable scientific experiment?) that it is also true for increasing temperature and/or increasing amount of gas?

iC
Yes.

All these videos here show all types of rockets, placed in an environment close to that of a vacuum,and they fail to work.

The reason they fail to work is Joules Law.

Now, back to how jets move...you never answered the question.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 14, 2020, 03:58:20 PM
As if a rocket doesn't have a fixed amount of gas available...
I would think it obvious from watching any rocket, that the amount of gas increases.
Take, as example, a simply rocket for fireworks. Before igniting it, there is only the (solid) fuel and little to no gas.
After igniting the fuel, a large amount of gas (that obviously wasn't there before) is being expelled.

All these videos here show all types of rockets, placed in an environment close to that of a vacuum,and they fail to work.
The reason they fail to work is Joules Law.
I don't recall a video, where the rockets actually failed. Do you have a specific one in mind, we could look at in detail?
It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.

Now, back to how jets move...you never answered the question.
Not much to answer there.
Burning fuel creates gas and heat. => pressure => mass expelled => plane accelerates the other way.
The process is of course more complex and depending on the specific type of jet engine, there will be some difference in how that is achieved.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 14, 2020, 09:44:01 PM
All laws of physics are derived from repeatable scientific experiment
covered by the real laws derived from Joules real experiment

I have said so before, I say so again:
Joule's experiment specifically requires constant temperature and a fixed amount of gas.
Both is not the case for rocket engines; Joules's experiment ist different from what creates thrust in a rocket.
=> Joule's Law is correct, validly derived from experiments. Your application of it is not, as you do not stay within the requirements set forth by Joule's experiment.
Or can you prove (by a repeatable scientific experiment?) that it is also true for increasing temperature and/or increasing amount of gas?

iC

You really struggle with laws of physics  . Laws of physics relate to reality .
Newtons laws relate to where ever and whenever forces are involved and changes in motion occur .

According to your sophistry Joules law only applies to his experiment .  Applies to vacuum at all times . That's why it's a law.

Why don't you look at the Boyle's law , Charles law , Gay-Lussac's Law . Look at the relationship between temperature and pressure and this relationships effect on chemical reactions. You'll realise then why chemical reactions cant sustain themselves in a vacuum .

Why don't you provide a defense of the idiotically named "law of conservation of momentum" . Laws are derived from repeatable experiment not derived from assumption .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 14, 2020, 10:42:41 PM
The fact is in a vacuum there is no force produced
When a rocket fires gas is propelled out of the end of the engine at high velocity, yes?
In order to reach that high velocity they must have been accelerated to it.
So for your next trick could you please explain how that happened without a force being applied?
F = ma
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 14, 2020, 10:47:13 PM
Newtons laws relate to where ever and whenever forces are involved and changes in motion occur .
Exactly. Well known examples are combustion engines in general and rockets in specific.

According to your sophistry Joules law only applies to his experiment .  Applies to vacuum at all times . That's why it's a law.
Not only to his experiment, but only to situations, that are actually described by Joule's Law.
Joule's Law describes how a constant amount of gas, that is kept at a constant temperature freely expands from a compartment of a closed volume to the complete volume.
It does not describe, how an increasing amount of gas, that is being heated up, expands under pressure into a large, open volume.
I'm staying true to Jule's Law, while you use it out of context.
Neither sophistry nor struggling with laws of physics on my side of this discussion ...

Newton's Laws apply whenever forces are involved and changes in motion => regardless of vacuum or no vacuum.
So if Newton's Laws apply to rockets in an atmosphere (which they seem to do - rockets work in an atmosphere), they also apply to rockets in a vacuum.

Why don't you look at the Boyle's law , Charles law , Gay-Lussac's Law . Look at the relationship between temperature and pressure and this relationships effect on chemical reactions. You'll realise then why chemical reactions cant sustain themselves in a vacuum .

Boyle's law requires temperature and amount of gas to remain unchanged.
Charles law requires the pressure to be constant.
Gay-Lussac's Law requires the pressure to be constant.
=> None of that is the case for rockets.
Why would any of those laws prevent chemical reactions from sustaining themselves in a vacuum?

Why don't you provide a defense of the idiotically named "law of conservation of momentum" . Laws are derived from repeatable experiment not derived from assumption .
Why would I?
It's basically common sense, that when each force has an equivalent opposing force, the change to momentum those forces create, will also equivalent. => conservation of momentum.

iC

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 10:42:08 AM
As if a rocket doesn't have a fixed amount of gas available...
I would think it obvious from watching any rocket, that the amount of gas increases.
In space (supposedly a vacuum)...

The amount of gas available in the rocket is fixed and throttled.

The vacuum is supposedly endless.
Take, as example, a simply rocket for fireworks. Before igniting it, there is only the (solid) fuel and little to no gas.
After igniting the fuel, a large amount of gas (that obviously wasn't there before) is being expelled.
The gas involved in Joules wasn't available to the vacuum "before," either...
I don't recall a video, where the rockets actually failed. Do you have a specific one in mind, we could look at in detail?
Watch all of them.

They are all here...

They all failed to work initially.
It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.
Yes, it is.

Gas is being released into a vacuum.

The rockets do not move until there is adequate presence of pressure in the container.
Now, back to how jets move...you never answered the question.
Not much to answer there.
Burning fuel creates gas and heat. => pressure => mass expelled => plane accelerates the other way.
The process is of course more complex and depending on the specific type of jet engine, there will be some difference in how that is achieved.

iC
I think you left something out...

What do you think of this quote?

“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 16, 2020, 11:02:23 AM
There is no law of conservation of momentum , psuedoscientific waffle that's why you are not able to direct me to the experiment that proves the concept . Mainstream science tries to hide this math trickery within the natural laws of physics , specifically Newton's laws .

Perhaps you are confusing the natural , real ,measured by experiment , law of conservation of energy with that bullshoite .

These natural laws cover all scenarios within mans experience regarding rocket engine production of thrust in pressurised or vacuum environs.

Oh - nice post Totallackey

Rocket engines cannot produce thrust in a vacuum - Joules 2nd law of thermodynamics . A real natural law provided by scientific experiment.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 16, 2020, 12:10:14 PM
The amount of gas available is fixed and throttled.
Yes, it is usually throttled.
That raises the question, how do you explain, that in free expansion, there is no throttle and what about the Joule–Thomson effect (describing the temperature change of a real gas when it is forced through a valve), if there were a throttle?
Take, as example, a simply rocket for fireworks. Before igniting it, there is only the (solid) fuel and little to no gas.
After igniting the fuel, a large amount of gas (that obviously wasn't there before) is being expelled.
So how can the amount of gas be fixed?
The total volume of gas created by the chemical reaction can be calculated, but the amount over time (start to and of burn) is not fixed - it is increasing.

The vacuum is supposedly endless.
Supposedly ist is.
As explained before, this is one reason for Joule's Law not being applicable:
Pstart*Vstart=Pend*Vend will not work very well for Vend=∞.

They all failed to work initially.
Initially.
It is pretty normal for experiments to fail initially, e.g. due to mistakes in setup.
If they can be made to work reproducible, that's what counts.
It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.
Yes, it is.
Gas is being released into a vacuum.
No, it isn't as "releasing gas into a vacuum" is not the only requirement of Joule's Law of Free Expansion.

The rockets do not move until there is adequate presence of pressure in the container.
Indeed, they do not move until they are started.
When the fuel burns, it creates hot gas, pressure rises, rocket starts moving.
Doesn't matter, if there's a vacuum or not.

I think you left something out...
What do you think of this quote?
“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”

I think, it sounds rather colloquial (in contrast to scientific), so I can't really tell if this is a scientifically audited and verified statement or just a simplified description for a general audience.
Regardless ... so what?
If there is an atmosphere, the gas expelled from a jet engine or a rocket will obviously push against it.
The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas.
I didn't mention the exhausted gas pushing against the atmosphere, because it is not what creates thrust.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 12:38:37 PM
The amount of gas available is fixed and throttled.
Yes, it is usually throttled.
That raises the question, how do you explain, that in free expansion, there is no throttle and what about the Joule–Thomson effect (describing the temperature change of a real gas when it is forced through a valve), if there were a throttle?
Pressure, whether or not it is throttled, is fixed at a rate by the type of gas.
Take, as example, a simply rocket for fireworks. Before igniting it, there is only the (solid) fuel and little to no gas.
After igniting the fuel, a large amount of gas (that obviously wasn't there before) is being expelled.
So how can the amount of gas be fixed?
The total volume of gas created by the chemical reaction can be calculated, but the amount over time (start to and of burn) is not fixed - it is increasing.[/quote]
Holy cow...

It is fixed by the very definition of the word - THROTTLE!
The vacuum is supposedly endless.
Supposedly ist is.
As explained before, this is one reason for Joule's Law not being applicable:
Pstart*Vstart=Pend*Vend will not work very well for Vend=∞.
LOL!

All the more reason it will work!
They all failed to work initially.
Initially.
It is pretty normal for experiments to fail initially, e.g. due to mistakes in setup.
If they can be made to work reproducible, that's what counts.
They are all reproducible and they all definitively show and demonstrate for the whole wide world to see...

ROCKETS DO NOT WORK IN A VACUUM!
It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.
Yes, it is.
Gas is being released into a vacuum.
No, it isn't as "releasing gas into a vacuum" is not the only requirement of Joule's Law of Free Expansion.
When it comes to a container of gas being opened up to (or within) the confines of a vacuum, then yes it does.
The rockets do not move until there is adequate presence of pressure in the container.
Indeed, they do not move until they are started.
When the fuel burns, it creates hot gas, pressure rises, rocket starts moving.
Doesn't matter, if there's a vacuum or not.
Yes, it does, as the claim made by me and others is: ROCKETS DO NOT WORK IN A VACUUM!

The rockets in these videos do not work until an environment OTHER THAN A VACUUM is present.
I think you left something out...
What do you think of this quote?
“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”

I think, it sounds rather colloquial (in contrast to scientific), so I can't really tell if this is a scientifically audited and verified statement or just a simplified description for a general audience.
Regardless ... so what?
If there is an atmosphere, the gas expelled from a jet engine or a rocket will obviously push against it.
The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas.
I didn't mention the exhausted gas pushing against the atmosphere, because it is not what creates thrust.

iC
Well, it does claim the exact opposite of what you just wrote:"The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas."

The article is clear: "This backward push produced the equivalent in forward thrust."

And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.

(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 16, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
There is no law of conservation of momentum

You're going to have to tell physics that

Quote
One of the most powerful laws in physics is the law of momentum conservation. The law of momentum conservation can be stated as follows.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

Source:
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle

Just shouting "isn't, isn't, isn't" really isn't a rebuttal, you know. The link above outlines some experiments which demonstrate the principle.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 16, 2020, 01:47:35 PM
Pressure, whether or not it is throttled, is fixed at a rate by the type of gas.
What do you mean by that?
Pressure depends on several variables, not just on the type of gas.

It is fixed by the very definition of the word - THROTTLE!
We are clearly talking about different things.
"A throttle is the mechanism by which flow is managed by constriction or obstruction."
Pstart*Vstart=Pend*Vend will not work very well for Vend=∞.
LOL!
All the more reason it will work!
Care to explain, why that would be?

ROCKETS DO NOT WORK IN A VACUUM!
Capitals only make it "louder", not truer.

It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.
Yes, it is.
Gas is being released into a vacuum.
No, it isn't as "releasing gas into a vacuum" is not the only requirement of Joule's Law of Free Expansion.
When it comes to a container of gas being opened up to (or within) the confines of a vacuum, then yes it does.
Then explain, why you can disregard the requirements for constant temperature and constant amount of gas?

Well, it does claim the exact opposite of what you just wrote:"The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas."
The article is clear: "This backward push produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.
Well strictly speaking, it does not say "This backward push against the atmosphere produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
But it does sound like they actually meant it the way, you understand it.
I can't tell and I do not know, what they based their conclusions on.

I prefer to believe currently respected science (=> rockets do work in a vacuum) rather than an historic periodical.
It is the backward push exerted on the exhausted gas, not on the atmosphere that produces the equivalent in forward thrust (=>Newton's Laws).

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 02:41:18 PM
Pressure, whether or not it is throttled, is fixed at a rate by the type of gas.
What do you mean by that?
Pressure depends on several variables, not just on the type of gas.
It is fixed by the type of gas.

Whether that gas is going through a throttle or not.

All gas has a specified pressure achieved by the size of the container and by the type of throttling.

And it is fixed.
It is fixed by the very definition of the word - THROTTLE!
We are clearly talking about different things.
"A throttle is the mechanism by which flow is managed by constriction or obstruction."
  • It has nothing to do with the amount of gas it throttles.
  • It manages flow, i.e. it is not fixed.
It is by the nature of the gas that the throttle is throttling.

And a throttle is FIXED at a certain amount.
Pstart*Vstart=Pend*Vend will not work very well for Vend=∞.
LOL!
All the more reason it will work!
Care to explain, why that would be?
Yes.

When the vacuum is supposedly infinite, there is no chance for the gas to equalize the pressure.
ROCKETS DO NOT WORK IN A VACUUM!
Capitals only make it "louder", not truer.
My intent was not to make it louder.

It is an exclamation based on the physical evidence placed here by the proponents of rockets working in a vacuum, that distinctly and definitively show OTHERWISE.
It cannot be Joule's Law, when the requirements for Joule's Law to apply are not met.
Yes, it is.
Gas is being released into a vacuum.
No, it isn't as "releasing gas into a vacuum" is not the only requirement of Joule's Law of Free Expansion.
When it comes to a container of gas being opened up to (or within) the confines of a vacuum, then yes it does.
Then explain, why you can disregard the requirements for constant temperature and constant amount of gas?
1) Who said there is a requirement for constant temperature?
2) The amount of gas released from a rocket is constant (i.e., the throttle).
Well, it does claim the exact opposite of what you just wrote:"The thrust, however, is not created by "pushing against the atmosphere", but by expelling the gas."
The article is clear: "This backward push produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.
Well strictly speaking, it does not say "This backward push against the atmosphere produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
But it does sound like they actually meant it the way, you understand it.
I can't tell and I do not know, what they based their conclusions on.
I can tell...

They base their conclusions on SCIENCE!
I prefer to believe currently respected science (=> rockets do work in a vacuum) rather than an historic periodical.
It is the backward push exerted on the exhausted gas, not on the atmosphere that produces the equivalent in forward thrust (=>Newton's Laws).

iC
You have no "currently respected science."

You have a bunch of loonies from Quora writing crap...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 16, 2020, 04:53:36 PM
There is no law of conservation of momentum

You're going to have to tell physics that

Quote
One of the most powerful laws in physics is the law of momentum conservation. The law of momentum conservation can be stated as follows.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

Source:
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle

Just shouting "isn't, isn't, isn't" really isn't a rebuttal, you know. The link above outlines some experiments which demonstrate the principle.

It is not a law, it is a mathematical theoretic concept with no basis in reality and based in theory only . Real physicists know that. Your link assumes force when the laws of physics state there is non in a vacuum .

Taken from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

"Symmetry and conservation
Conservation of momentum is a mathematical consequence of the homogeneity (shift symmetry) of space (position in space is the canonical conjugate quantity to momentum). That is, conservation of momentum is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not depend on position; this is a special case of Noether's theorem.[31] "

The natural real laws apply to reality and imaginary laws apply only to imaginary scenarios ( although one could always imagine another scenario where the first imaginary law could be replaced by another imaginary law theoretical schmience at it's best ). Noether's theorem is erm theory .

You could of course provide the real experiment which allows you spout your usual unsubstantiated bs .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 16, 2020, 05:11:30 PM
All gas has a specified pressure achieved by the size of the container and by the type of throttling.
And it is fixed.
If that gas is heated/cooled, the pressure will change.
If the size of the container is changed, the pressure will change.
If the amount of gas is changed, the pressure will change.
A throttle would indirectly change the amount of gas by throttling the inflow or outflow of gas.
How do you conclude, that all gas would have a specified and unchangeable pressure?

And a throttle is FIXED at a certain amount.
A throttle is most certainly not fixed at a certain amount; the very idea of a throttle is to variably restrain the flow of e.g. fuel.
At least that is the throttle I know from planes, cars, motrocycles, ...
Do you refer to a different kind of throttle?

When the vacuum is supposedly infinite, there is no chance for the gas to equalize the pressure.
You really should take a closer look at Joule's experiment on Free Expansion.
It specifically compares at a stable initial state and a stable end state.
If the pressure cannot equalize, there will be no end state.
And why would equalization of pressure be relevant in any case? It is not a significant factor for a rocket working in a vacuum.

Then explain, why you can disregard the requirements for constant temperature and constant amount of gas?
1) Who said there is a requirement for constant temperature?
2) The amount of gas released from a rocket is constant (i.e., the throttle).
And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.
Well strictly speaking, it does not say "This backward push against the atmosphere produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
But it does sound like they actually meant it the way, you understand it.
I can't tell and I do not know, what they based their conclusions on.
I can tell...
They base their conclusions on SCIENCE!
So how can you tell?
Is there any verifiable scientific description how they reached their conclusions?
In the article there isn't, it's just a pretty generic description that obviously is more focused on giving a general idea than specifics. (Which is not a bad thing at all.)
Are you aware, that science itself is not static and that laws/theories/... have often been corrected, specified in more detail or improved by later studies/experiments?

You have no "currently respected science."
You have a bunch of loonies from Quora writing crap...

Actually I have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.
Applied in a scientifically correct way, they prove that rockets work in a vacuum.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 16, 2020, 06:20:52 PM
"Actually I have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.
Applied in a scientifically correct way, they prove that rockets work in a vacuum.

iC"

No you haven't, which is why Nasa and it's apologists have to use the imaginary "law of conservation of momentum" despite having no scientific evidence which would allow it to be classed as such.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: stack on March 16, 2020, 06:34:15 PM
"Actually I have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.
Applied in a scientifically correct way, they prove that rockets work in a vacuum.

iC"

No you haven't, which is why Nasa and it's apologists have to use the imaginary "law of conservation of momentum" despite having no scientific evidence which would allow it to be classed as such.

Where do you find it to be 'imaginary'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofgeRSCLyXc
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 17, 2020, 09:16:12 AM
Theory = imagination = "law of conservation of momentum" as already linked .
 
Notice his use use of the words "conservation of energy" - real natural laws deduced from real experiments like these .

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 09:31:52 AM
The reason the publication is called "Popular" Science, and not "Applied Science", "Complex Science" or "Advanced Science" is specifically that it is targeted at the General Populace. The man in the street. The average citizen.

It's not a research paper, it's not a comprehensive text on the topic, it's a broad-brush summary, where complex matters are simplified, and set out in terms that are understandable to that audience.

With simplification comes lack of precision with regard to descriptive terms.

This has to be borne in mind when quoting from it and claiming absolute certaintly with regard to isolated phrases pulled from it.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 09:56:16 AM
Further quotes from popular science sources;

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

"In brief, you can see that each main part of the engine does a different thing to the air or fuel mixture passing through:

- Compressor: Dramatically increases the pressure of the air (and, to a lesser extent) its temperature.
- Combustion chamber: Dramatically increases the temperature of the air-fuel mixture by releasing heat energy from the fuel.
- Exhaust nozzle: Dramatically increases the velocity of the exhaust gases, so powering the plane."



"When we talk about jet engines, we to tend think of rocket-like tubes that fire exhaust gas backward. Another basic bit of physics, Newton's third law of motion, tells us that as a jet engine's exhaust gas shoots back, the plane itself must move forward. It's exactly like a skateboarder kicking back on the pavement to go forward; in a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick". In everyday words, the action (the force of the exhaust gas shooting backward) is equal and opposite to the reaction (the force of the plane moving forward); the action moves the exhaust gas, while the reaction moves the plane."
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 10:42:01 AM
All gas has a specified pressure achieved by the size of the container and by the type of throttling.
And it is fixed.
If that gas is heated/cooled, the pressure will change.
Correct.

A rocket does change the temperature of the gas, as shown here in the videos.

Does it work in a vacuum?

Answer - NO, as shown here in the videos.
If the size of the container is changed, the pressure will change.
If the amount of gas is changed, the pressure will change.
A throttle would indirectly change the amount of gas by throttling the inflow or outflow of gas.
How do you conclude, that all gas would have a specified and unchangeable pressure?
What do you think a throttle is for?

It is used to SET the amount of gas being released.
And a throttle is FIXED at a certain amount.
A throttle is most certainly not fixed at a certain amount; the very idea of a throttle is to variably restrain the flow of e.g. fuel.
At least that is the throttle I know from planes, cars, motrocycles, ...
Do you refer to a different kind of throttle?
Nope...

Much like these throttles, the amount is set.

Can it be varied?

Yes.

But a throttle governs the amount of gas released.
When the vacuum is supposedly infinite, there is no chance for the gas to equalize the pressure.
You really should take a closer look at Joule's experiment on Free Expansion.
It specifically compares at a stable initial state and a stable end state.
If the pressure cannot equalize, there will be no end state.
And why would equalization of pressure be relevant in any case? It is not a significant factor for a rocket working in a vacuum.
And you really should look at these videos because they clearly contradict what you are writing here.
Then explain, why you can disregard the requirements for constant temperature and constant amount of gas?
1) Who said there is a requirement for constant temperature?
2) The amount of gas released from a rocket is constant (i.e., the throttle).
  • Joule's Law/Experiment. His conclusion was, as the temperature does not change, no work is done. So if the temperature changes, it is not Joules Law of Free Expansion. 
His conclusion was that gas, regardless of temperature, released to a vacuum does no work.

These videos show exactly that.

Rocket engines, placed inside a vacuum, changing the temperature of gas, and they still do no work.
  • No, it is not. The whole idea of a throttle is to control the thrust of jet engines and rockets, see above.
i.e., limit the amount amount of gas released in the aft direction, as I have been writing all along.
And it is POPULAR SCIENCE, a respected periodical not known to lie to its audience, I think I would trust this more than you.
Well strictly speaking, it does not say "This backward push against the atmosphere produced the equivalent in forward thrust."
But it does sound like they actually meant it the way, you understand it.
I can't tell and I do not know, what they based their conclusions on.
I can tell...
They base their conclusions on SCIENCE!
So how can you tell?
Is there any verifiable scientific description how they reached their conclusions?
Yeah.

Newton's Third...
In the article there isn't, it's just a pretty generic description that obviously is more focused on giving a general idea than specifics. (Which is not a bad thing at all.)
Nope.

Pretty specific in what it states.

The jet releases burnt fuel out the back of the engine in the form of hot gas and that hot gas pushes off the atmosphere, thrusting the plane forward.

Everybody knows this how jets work.
Are you aware, that science itself is not static and that laws/theories/... have often been corrected, specified in more detail or improved by later studies/experiments?

You have no "currently respected science."
You have a bunch of loonies from Quora writing crap...

Actually I have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.
Applied in a scientifically correct way, they prove that rockets work in a vacuum.

iC
Funny, we seem to have Newton and the established laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics...you got nothing to show as evidence...you could rely on the video evidence here, except for the fact the videos show you are clearly wrong.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 10:45:11 AM
The reason the publication is called "Popular" Science, and not "Applied Science", "Complex Science" or "Advanced Science" is specifically that it is targeted at the General Populace. The man in the street. The average citizen.

It's not a research paper, it's not a comprehensive text on the topic, it's a broad-brush summary, where complex matters are simplified, and set out in terms that are understandable to that audience.

With simplification comes lack of precision with regard to descriptive terms.

This has to be borne in mind when quoting from it and claiming absolute certaintly(sic) with regard to isolated phrases pulled from it.
It also has to be borne in mind when writing on a whole.

Everybody knows that jets work exactly as described in the article.

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 10:47:24 AM
Further quotes from popular science sources;

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

"In brief, you can see that each main part of the engine does a different thing to the air or fuel mixture passing through:

- Compressor: Dramatically increases the pressure of the air (and, to a lesser extent) its temperature.
- Combustion chamber: Dramatically increases the temperature of the air-fuel mixture by releasing heat energy from the fuel.
- Exhaust nozzle: Dramatically increases the velocity of the exhaust gases, so powering the plane."



"When we talk about jet engines, we to tend think of rocket-like tubes that fire exhaust gas backward. Another basic bit of physics, Newton's third law of motion, tells us that as a jet engine's exhaust gas shoots back, the plane itself must move forward. It's exactly like a skateboarder kicking back on the pavement to go forward; in a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick". In everyday words, the action (the force of the exhaust gas shooting backward) is equal and opposite to the reaction (the force of the plane moving forward); the action moves the exhaust gas, while the reaction moves the plane."
All taking place within the confines of an environment having PRESSURE.

All proven to require a pressurized environment as demonstrated by these videos.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 12:04:21 PM
Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

No. Like the rocket, the jet exhaust pushes the atmosphere away from the engine. Large quantities of exhaust move large quantities of air, with the associated high volume of sound that goes with it. There's a lot of sound because there's a lot of movement of the air, away from the craft.

If the atmosphere resisted, this would not occur.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 12:16:50 PM
Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

No. Like the rocket, the jet exhaust pushes the atmosphere away from the engine. Large quantities of exhaust move large quantities of air, with the associated high volume of sound that goes with it. There's a lot of sound because there's a lot of movement of the air, away from the craft.

If the atmosphere resisted, this would not occur.
Good god man, it is the fact the atmoplane is present that allows everyone to HEAR the sound!

The stronger the air is moving against the atmoplane, the more force that is generated.

Similar to me vs Arnold pushing against the wall.

I can push against the wall and go back the opposite way, but Arnold will go back further.

Look, aside from the fact Popular Science clearly disagrees with you, find one scientific journal of any kind that states what you are writing.

Cause there isn't.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 01:36:47 PM
No, you've misunderstood the intent of my bolding, so I shall re-do this

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.

To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 17, 2020, 11:21:58 PM
Excuse me, I'm not a rocket engineer, so I'm not qualified to comment. 

I am, however, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, in the categories of Turbine and Piston engine aeroplanes. 

Pure jets, turboprops, turbofans and reciprocating engines all convert the chemical energy of a fuel into heat to (either directly or indirectly) accelerate a mass of gas (air, or a mixture of air and combustion products) along a vector; normally rearwards.  This is an action. 

Newton's RE-action (not "pushing against the atmosphere") accelerates the engine along a vector opposite to the original action.  I know this because its my job.  Its how we engineers get you to Ibeza.  Or to Antarctica, if it existed.   "Doo doo doo doo" (Outer Limits music). 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 10:44:06 AM
No, you've misunderstood the intent of my bolding, so I shall re-do this

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.
Once again, it has too...or the ENTIRE atmoplane is GONE...are you still breathing?

I know I am...
To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Ever seen a wall on frictionless casters?

I never have.

The atmoplane provides resistance to the gas being expelled.

That is the ONLY REASON why jets and rockets work.

As evidenced by all these wondrous videos provided by the proponents of rockets working in a vacuum.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 10:47:09 AM
Excuse me, I'm not a rocket engineer, so I'm not qualified to comment. 

I am, however, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, in the categories of Turbine and Piston engine aeroplanes. 

Pure jets, turboprops, turbofans and reciprocating engines all convert the chemical energy of a fuel into heat to (either directly or indirectly) accelerate a mass of gas (air, or a mixture of air and combustion products) along a vector; normally rearwards.  This is an action. 

Newton's RE-action (not "pushing against the atmosphere") accelerates the engine along a vector opposite to the original action.  I know this because its my job.  Its how we engineers get you to Ibeza.  Or to Antarctica, if it existed.   "Doo doo doo doo" (Outer Limits music).
Sorry, but you need a force pair.

And you didn't provide one.

This: (http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
clearly states otherwise.
“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”

That's your force pair.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 18, 2020, 11:03:01 AM
If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.
Once again, it has too...or the ENTIRE atmoplane is GONE...are you still breathing?

It cannot be getting an opposite reaction from air that has been pushed away from the craft.

Exhaust leaves engine, pushes surrounding air back and outward away from the rear of the engine, in the case of a typical passenger jet, hundreds of metres away .... how can the air at this distance be providing any 'push' to the airframe of the craft?


To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Ever seen a wall on frictionless casters?

I never have.

No, because it's an ANALOGY, one that you introduced. Have you ever seen an atmosphere that stays in one place, the way that a wall does? I never have.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 11:42:56 AM
If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.
Once again, it has too...or the ENTIRE atmoplane is GONE...are you still breathing?

It cannot be getting an opposite reaction from air that has been pushed away from the craft.
Yes, it can.

We have already addressed this.

If the atmoplane provided no resistance to the exhaust, then ALL of the atmoplane would be blown away.

Is it?

Answer = NO.

So, the atmoplane provides resistance.

As evidenced in these videos here.

Rockets are ignited in these chambers.

Only when there is a pressure inside the chamber is the rocket able to move within the chamber.
Exhaust leaves engine, pushes surrounding air back and outward away from the rear of the engine, in the case of a typical passenger jet, hundreds of metres away .... how can the air at this distance be providing any 'push' to the airframe of the craft?
If I had arms hundreds of meters long I would still be able to push against a wall hundreds of meters away.
To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?
Ever seen a wall on frictionless casters?

I never have.

No, because it's an ANALOGY, one that you introduced. Have you ever seen an atmosphere that stays in one place, the way that a wall does? I never have.
A poor analogy and a strawman.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 18, 2020, 12:54:54 PM
A poor analogy and a strawman.

... which YOU introduced to start with... nobody mentioned a wall before you did.


Exhaust leaves the engine at high speed, pushing air backward and outward. In the area surrounding the rear of the engine, the air is merely a passenger, pushed, pulled and dragged along by the exhaust.

In the same way that ripples on a pond eventually dissipate with distance from centre, the effect of the exhaust dissipates with distance and time. This is clearly due the presence of the air, and the atmospheric pressure of the air.

But that cannot transfer energy to the body of the craft. By the time the surrounding air has slowed the exhaust to stop, or by the time it has had any significant influence on its speed, the exhaust and the air are far away from the craft.

So how can they influence the craft at this stage? 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 03:07:21 PM
A poor analogy and a strawman.

... which YOU introduced to start with... nobody mentioned a wall before you did.
The frictionless casters is the poor analogy and the strawman.
Exhaust leaves the engine at high speed, pushing air backward and outward. In the area surrounding the rear of the engine, the air is merely a passenger, pushed, pulled and dragged along by the exhaust.
Wrong, it acts as a wall.
In the same way that ripples on a pond eventually dissipate with distance from centre, the effect of the exhaust dissipates with distance and time. This is clearly due the presence of the air, and the atmospheric pressure of the air.
The air provides resistance, as you admit.

Just as a wall provides the resistance to my arms pushing against it, forcing me the opposite direction.
But that cannot transfer energy to the body of the craft. By the time the surrounding air has slowed the exhaust to stop, or by the time it has had any significant influence on its speed, the exhaust and the air are far away from the craft.

So how can they influence the craft at this stage?
Horse hockey.

You got to push off something.

The exhaust is built up behind the craft.

And continues to accumulate in a pressurized fashion.

Simply outstretching your arms results in no movement.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare on March 18, 2020, 03:39:35 PM
Simply outstretching your arms results in no movement.
Are you sure?
If you're sitting on a swing and swing your feet forward, it will result in movement.
I've seen kids do it, I've done it myself.
(Also works on a swivel chair.  ;D)

Pushing the mass of your feet forward (at speed) will push your body back.
And not because you're "pushing against air", but because one mass (feet) accelerates one way so the other mass (rest of body) most accelerate the other way.

The effect is of course limited due to relatively light feet and short legs.

iC
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 18, 2020, 03:51:38 PM
Horse hockey.

You got to push off something.

No, you don't. The fact you don't understand that doesn't make you right.
Do you really think that when you fire a gun the recoil is because of the bullet pushing off the air?!
(HINT: It isn't)
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 03:57:43 PM
Horse hockey.

You got to push off something.

No, you don't. The fact you don't understand that doesn't make you right.
Do you really think that when you fire a gun the recoil is because of the bullet pushing off the air?!
(HINT: It isn't)
The bullet expands inside the cylinder...

The same way the piston in rings expand to fill the cylinder.

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

Which gasses, pushing off the bullet, cause the gun to recoil.

So yeah, you got to push off something.

I understand perfectly.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: wpeszko on March 18, 2020, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: totallackey link=topic=15702.msg207590#msg207590

So yeah, you got to push off something.

I understand perfectly.
So, yeah, rockets push off the hot gases in their burn chambers.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: totallackey link=topic=15702.msg207590#msg207590

So yeah, you got to push off something.

I understand perfectly.
So, yeah, rockets push off the hot gases in their burn chambers.
So yeah...burn chambers (i.e., nozzles) are open to a vacuum...

So the hot gasses are incapable of performing work....

Because gas released to a vacuum does 0 work...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 06:41:30 PM
Simply outstretching your arms results in no movement.
Are you sure?
If you're sitting on a swing and swing your feet forward, it will result in movement.
I've seen kids do it, I've done it myself.
(Also works on a swivel chair.  ;D)
The swing requires a start.

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

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.
Pushing the mass of your feet forward (at speed) will push your body back.
And not because you're "pushing against air", but because one mass (feet) accelerates one way so the other mass (rest of body) most accelerate the other way.

The effect is of course limited due to relatively light feet and short legs.

iC
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.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 18, 2020, 07:48:11 PM
I understand perfectly.
That's one for the sig.

Just proclaiming you to understand something doesn't make it so.
And just using your magic catch-phrase "does no work" doesn't make a point for you.
iCare has explained ad nauseum while Joule's result does not apply to rockets and his example of the swing is one I was thinking of using.
You can get yourself moving on a swing simply by moving your legs. Not because your legs are pushing against the air but because you are shifting your mass which causes a reaction. Which is how rockets work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 18, 2020, 09:33:44 PM
The bullet expands inside the cylinder...

Hogwash, the bullet remains the same size at all times

(https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-24-at-8.29.25-AM.png)

The same way the piston in rings expand to fill the cylinder.

Hogwash, there's nothing on a bullet that can expand

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

The bullet doesn't cause gases to expand, the ignited propellant is what does that

Which gasses, pushing off the bullet, cause the gun to recoil.

So you agree the expanding gases push against the back of the bullet, and the inside of the casing as well?

I understand perfectly.

Not so sure about that...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 19, 2020, 07:30:39 AM
I understand perfectly.
That's one for the sig.

Just proclaiming you to understand something doesn't make it so.
And just using your magic catch-phrase "does no work" doesn't make a point for you.
iCare has explained ad nauseum while Joule's result does not apply to rockets and his example of the swing is one I was thinking of using.
You can get yourself moving on a swing simply by moving your legs. Not because your legs are pushing against the air but because you are shifting your mass which causes a reaction. Which is how rockets work.

Re your idiotic comment about magic catch-phrase  - "does no work"  - this is a law deduced from scientific experiment .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 19, 2020, 08:07:09 AM
Magic  happens in defiance of the laws of science .
icare will have to show the scientific experiment that proves his ad nauseum "explanation".
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 19, 2020, 08:18:13 AM
Re your idiotic comment about magic catch-phrase  - "does no work"  - this is a law deduced from scientific experiment .
Yes. And only applies in certain circumstances.
iCare understands this stuff better than me and he has very clearly explained why a rocket operating does not meet the criteria for this law to apply. If you don't understand that then I don't know what we can do about that, but just repeating the phrase regardless adds nothing to this debate.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Globe Earther on March 19, 2020, 08:47:14 AM
Okay let's be honest, if you link me a article from the internet that says the moon landing is fake, I can also link you articles that prove the moon landing was real. So you can't prove anything with articles.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 10:40:00 AM
The swing requires a start.
No it doesn't, why would it? It's being started by your movement.
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.
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.
Yeah, the force is coming from the hip and transmitted to the focal point on the seat of the chair and from there, to the 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.
No...
At lest under perfect conditions.
As you admit now.
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.

Force for movement is transmitted through the hips.
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.
Nope.

You aadmitted differently above.
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
Too bad the videos here clearly demonstrate a rocket requires a pressurized environment to work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 10:43:56 AM
The bullet expands inside the cylinder...

Hogwash, the bullet remains the same size at all times.
Holy cow...if a bullet remains the same size while it is traveling down the barrel, then how on earth do we conduct ballistics testing?

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 19, 2020, 10:53:15 AM
Holy cow...if a bullet remains the same size while it is traveling down the barrel, then how on earth do we conduct ballistics testing?

Tell us what you think happens as the bullet travels down the length of the barrel.

Does it expand or contract lengthwise? Does it expand or contract across the diameter of the barrel?

Does it change in size again when it leaves the barrel?

Are you referring to Internal Ballistics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ballistics

 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 19, 2020, 11:02:45 AM
Re your idiotic comment about magic catch-phrase  - "does no work"  - this is a law deduced from scientific experiment .
Yes. And only applies in certain circumstances.
iCare understands this stuff better than me and he has very clearly explained why a rocket operating does not meet the criteria for this law to apply. If you don't understand that then I don't know what we can do about that, but just repeating the phrase regardless adds nothing to this debate.

It's a law of physics and applies to all situations  - it applies to reality in all situations involving expansion of gas into a vacuum.  It's ok if you don't understand physics. 
Ask iCare to provide you with the scientific experimental results which allow him to issue the statement that laws depend on his criteria and therefore don't apply to " certain situations". That's all he has to do.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 11:03:20 AM
Holy cow...if a bullet remains the same size while it is traveling down the barrel, then how on earth do we conduct ballistics testing?

Tell us what you think happens as the bullet travels down the length of the barrel.

Does it expand or contract lengthwise? Does it expand or contract across the diameter of the barrel?

Does it change in size again when it leaves the barrel?

Are you referring to Internal Ballistics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ballistics
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

However, in the interest of maintaining focus on the OP and remaining on topic, I will simply reiterate this:

As demonstrated by the video evidence presented here, and as expressed by Joules when he found that gas does 0 work when released to a vacuum, rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Rockets require a pressurized environment to work.

Proven fact.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 19, 2020, 11:09:20 AM
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 12:11:07 PM
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
I'll open a thread in Science and Technology with the info.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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:
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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 12:19:15 PM
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
Yeah, the videos do.

Your main argument against the videos is that Joules somehow restricts the temperatures to a constant, stating that rockets increase the temperature and therefore it Joules doesn't apply.

Well, the rockets do increase the temperature, causing rapidly expanding gasses.

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.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2020, 12:22:59 PM
  • 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.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 19, 2020, 12:46:14 PM
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
I'll open a thread in Science and Technology with the info.

OK, accepted. Obturation causes deformity in the bullets, the extent of which is determined by the texture of said bullet.

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

Still insist, though, that the bullet doesn't cause gases to expand, the ignited propellant is what does that

EDIT - in fact, any increased resistance from the bullet expanding in the barrel generates compression, not expansion ...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 19, 2020, 01:01:35 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

Yet you are unable to provide any details of these experiments which you say have provided proof . Where be they?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 19, 2020, 02:49:47 PM
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.

Okay how would these behave differently in a vacuum, Newton's 3rd law would still apply right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-xmaPSZ6GM

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 19, 2020, 04:22:47 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
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.




Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 19, 2020, 04:27:46 PM
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.
Tell ya what.
How about you provide a link to a credible scientific paper which claims that rockets can't work in a vacuum?
You are claiming a link between Joule's law and rockets.
iCare has very carefully and patiently explained why that link is erroneous.
If he's wrong then you should be able to provide a scientific article which backs up your assertion.
Straight forward enough.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 19, 2020, 07:54:14 PM
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle. 

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
I'll open a thread in Science and Technology with the info.

OK, accepted. Obturation causes deformity in the bullets, the extent of which is determined by the texture of said bullet.

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

Still insist, though, that the bullet doesn't cause gases to expand, the ignited propellant is what does that

EDIT - in fact, any increased resistance from the bullet expanding in the barrel generates compression, not expansion ...
Yeah, I meant to type "compress."

Sorry.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 10:43:38 AM
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.
Sure they do, even in a pressurized environment.

Doesn't alleviate the fact a pressurized environment is required, as evidenced and presented in the videos in this thread.
To draw a valid conclusion from the videos that would have to be taken into account, i.e. by a series of experiments to calibrate for different levels of pressure .
With the data provided in the videos this may or may not be coincidental.
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
  • 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".
In this case (i.e., rockets WORKING in a vacuum), it is.
Also you might review the Joule–Thomson effect, as the way the gas is released does make a difference.
No, it doesn't.

What matters is the environment to which it is released.
And it still stands to be proven, that Joule's experiment can be generalized from a closed container to open vacuum.
Actually, the videos remain as proof that rockets (i.e., containers of gas) do not work in a 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
The video evidence clearly proves you wrong.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 10:45:20 AM
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle.
The nozzle is open to a vacuum.

Gas released to a vacuum does 0 work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 10:47:42 AM
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.

Okay how would these behave differently in a vacuum, Newton's 3rd law would still apply right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-xmaPSZ6GM
If you bust a CO^2 cartridge open in a vacuum chamber, what do you think would happen?

Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the chamber and then move?

Answer = 2
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 12:17:54 PM
If you bust a CO^2 cartridge open in a vacuum, what do you think would happen?

Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the container and then move?

Answer = 2

What are you talking about here? Surely the container - the cartridge - is already pressurised, to a pressure above the pressure outside it?

What "adequate pressure" do you mean?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 20, 2020, 12:40:55 PM
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle.
Do the teach engineering differently these days?

As an engineer you know that thermal energy,however it is produced , must be converted to kinetic energy by mechanical means - be it piston ,drive shaft ,steam or air pressure , in order to produce a force and thrust .
         A choke is just an opening in a chamber of whatever size you make it . You know that being an engineer .  Have a look at Joules experiment . His experiment found that no work is done by free expansion of thermal energy through a hole or choke as you call it. Because there is no way to convert thermal energy to provide a force and its reactive force of thrust. It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .
 
Thinking about it I can't recall being told about Joules experiment at college or uni .
     
     Equating a chamber at 2psi and it's interaction with another at 10psi to interaction , with a chamber at 0psi (rocket combustion chamber in a vacuum) and the vacuum of space at 0psi is a silly analogy.

    I was also taught that the rocket is the most inefficient of all heat exchange engines . Wastes alot of energy sounding powerful and looking good .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 01:02:50 PM
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 01:06:58 PM
If you bust a CO^2 cartridge open in a vacuum, what do you think would happen?

Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the container and then move?

Answer = 2

What are you talking about here? Surely the container - the cartridge - is already pressurised, to a pressure above the pressure outside it?

What "adequate pressure" do you mean?
Are you aware of a vacuum chamber that is not some sort of container?

ETA: I changed my post to read "chamber," to further clarify.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 01:08:31 PM
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Gas is freely expanding into a vacuum and performing 0 work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 01:14:32 PM
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Gas is freely expanding into a vacuum and performing 0 work.

So where's the force coming from, where Somerled says "It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force" .... ?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 01:16:37 PM
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Gas is freely expanding into a vacuum and performing 0 work.

So where's the force coming from, where Somerled says "It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force" .... ?
somerled is claiming (as am I) that force (work) is done outside the nozzle when the outside environment is under pressure.
...It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 01:30:59 PM
somerled is claiming (as am I) that force (work) is done outside the nozzle when the outside environment is under pressure.
...It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .

So what actually happens there, specifically?

I presume you assert that molecules of expelled exhaust gas hit molecules of air, or whatever gas is outwith the nozzle. Is this what you assert?

 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 20, 2020, 01:50:04 PM
Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the chamber and then move?

Answer = 2

Wrong, it would immediately. Do you what I find totally lacking in our conversations? Any kind of conversion. I and 99.9999999999999% of the human population have no issue with Newton's Laws of motion being applied to the motions of things, rockets, cars, airplanes etc. We also have no issues with Joules expansion experiment. Where we all get mystified, is when you claim and experiment done in a closed box is equal to a body in motion.

nuff said
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 01:55:11 PM
somerled is claiming (as am I) that force (work) is done outside the nozzle when the outside environment is under pressure.
...It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .

So what actually happens there, specifically?

I presume you assert that molecules of expelled exhaust gas hit molecules of air, or whatever gas is outwith the nozzle. Is this what you assert?
Well, when you look at video of rocket launches you can see what is happening.

Just like any other object hitting another object.

There is a reaction between the objects.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 01:58:08 PM
Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the chamber and then move?

Answer = 2

Wrong, it would immediately.
Every video here proves that your reply is wrong.
Do you what I find totally lacking in our conversations? Any kind of conversion. I and 99.9999999999999% of the human population have no issue with Newton's Laws of motion being applied to the motions of things, rockets, cars, airplanes etc. We also have no issues with Joules expansion experiment. Where we all get mystified, is when you claim and experiment done in a closed box is equal to a body in motion.

nuff said
When you can show me a rocket, in motion, in a vacuum, then maybe, you will find more meaningful conversation.

Nuff said...
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 02:10:05 PM
somerled is claiming (as am I) that force (work) is done outside the nozzle when the outside environment is under pressure.
...It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .

So what actually happens there, specifically?

I presume you assert that molecules of expelled exhaust gas hit molecules of air, or whatever gas is outwith the nozzle. Is this what you assert?
Well, when you look at video of rocket launches you can see what is happening.

Just like any other object hitting another object.

There is a reaction between the objects.

How can that reaction, taking place outwith the rocket, influence the rocket itself?

Analogy; if I throw a ball out of the side window of my house, toward my neighbour's wall, the ball hits the wall. Does this have ANY influence on me or my house? 
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 20, 2020, 02:57:29 PM



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


iC
[/quote]

Clarify this statement please iCare .

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 03:02:58 PM
somerled is claiming (as am I) that force (work) is done outside the nozzle when the outside environment is under pressure.
...It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .

So what actually happens there, specifically?

I presume you assert that molecules of expelled exhaust gas hit molecules of air, or whatever gas is outwith the nozzle. Is this what you assert?
Well, when you look at video of rocket launches you can see what is happening.

Just like any other object hitting another object.

There is a reaction between the objects.

How can that reaction, taking place outwith the rocket, influence the rocket itself?

Analogy; if I throw a ball out of the side window of my house, toward my neighbour's wall, the ball hits the wall. Does this have ANY influence on me or my house?
Of course it has an impact on the rocket.

All the exhaust is contained in a plume, which is walled up inside the pressurized environment.

That plume is acting against the wall of the pressurized environment.

That is how jets and rockets move.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 20, 2020, 03:09:38 PM
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?

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.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 03:12:58 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?

All the exhaust is contained in a plume, which is walled up inside the pressurized environment.
That plume is acting against the wall of the pressurized environment.
That is how jets and rockets move.

How can this influence the rocket, if the interaction of exhaust plume and environment takes place once the plume has left it?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2020, 04:46:02 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.

If you use your arm to push off a wall, then you go the opposite direction.

The rocket exhaust is consistently pushing off a pressurized environment, it will continue to have an effect on the rocket.
All the exhaust is contained in a plume, which is walled up inside the pressurized environment.
That plume is acting against the wall of the pressurized environment.
That is how jets and rockets move.

How can this influence the rocket, if the interaction of exhaust plume and environment takes place once the plume has left it?
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.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 20, 2020, 05:51:45 PM
A rocket exhaust is part of the rocket.
Just like your arm is part of your body.
If you use your arm to push off a wall, then you go the opposite direction.
The rocket exhaust is consistently pushing off a pressurized environment, it will continue to have an effect on the rocket.

Another analogy - if you use a garden hose, is the water that comes out of the hose part of the hose, in the same way that you regard the plume as part of the rocket?

Y/N
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 20, 2020, 06:01:43 PM
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?

The only issue with that is the video I originally posted about this shows the pressure gauge. Which you can see doesn't move after the rocket fires. Here are before and after stills from the video (again, attached, ffs can you please sort out your issue with the imgbb site.)

And the bloke explained how he made the tube long enough that the volume was big enough that the gas from the rocket was not enough to create any significant pressure in the tube. That is borne out by the lack of change in the gauge.

It's a silly argument anyway. The gas coming out of the rocket is, by definition, going away from the rocket at high speed. How can subsequent molecules push back off them to make the rocket move when the stream of gas is flowing in the same direction at the same speed?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 20, 2020, 11:52:12 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

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

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)

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 can use W = F x d x cos theta for forces at an angle to each other but that makes no difference to the result

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

Heating gas is addition of thermal energy not kinetic energy .

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.

No work done = no force = no acceleration .

What you have made clear is that you don't understand basic physics . W = F x d .
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2020, 12:06:34 AM
Holding a pint of beer up involves work - that's why your arm tires after a while . Work is being done - 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.

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).

You don't see the contradiction between these two paragraphs, then?

The pint does. not. move, but you assert work is being done. F x d must therefore be 0, since d = 0.

You then claim W is greater than 0, but F times 0 must be equal to 0.

No?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 21, 2020, 07:19:19 AM
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 .

In the case of the pint glass - work done to hold to hold the pint steady is equal and opposite to the work done by gravity acting in the opposite direction.

Sophistry will not alter the laws of physics.


Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 21, 2020, 11:03:23 AM
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.

Also the rest of your psuedoscience - thermal energy is not a force ,no matter how much you produce - that's basic physics . Mechanical  conversion required to produce a force (kinetic energy). Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .

Very adept at sophistry and posting the old wall of gobshoite though


Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2020, 12:22:40 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.

You provided it. See my previous post outlining the contradiction of your two paragraphs
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 21, 2020, 01:49:44 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
Then provide the scientific experiment and its data that enables you to make the claim that no work does not equal no force.

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 .

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.


Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: somerled on March 21, 2020, 02:41:33 PM
On your take of things and relating to your sophistry

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

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.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 21, 2020, 03:05:04 PM
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.

Several videos of rockets working in a vacuum have been provided.

Quote
In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton's third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.

This rule can be seen on Earth. Imagine a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that person throwing a bowling ball. The ball will go forward. The person on the skateboard will move, too. The person will move backward. Because the person is heavier, the bowling ball will move farther.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html

Rockets work in a vacuum because of Newton’s laws. You are looking at other laws and extrapolating from those that rockets don’t work in a vacuum, but you are doing so erroneously.

The proof of that is you have failed to provide one credible scientific source which says that rockets can’t work in a volume.
So either literal rocket scientists are all wrong, or you are. I reckon it’s you.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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.
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:
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) (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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: model 29 on March 21, 2020, 04:54:40 PM
If rockets use the combustion exhaust to 'push off air' in order to lift off, basically requiring a medium for the exhaust to push against, I'm curious what Totallackey and Somerled think would happen if the atmosphere were thicker.  Would rockets lift off faster?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 21, 2020, 05:30:12 PM
If rockets use the combustion exhaust to 'push off air' in order to lift off, basically requiring a medium for the exhaust to push against, I'm curious what Totallackey and Somerled think would happen if the atmosphere were thicker.  Would rockets lift off faster?
This is along the lines of a point I made to lackey a while back which he ignored.
Even if we concede that in the videos posted the vacuum is not perfect, it’s still good enough that the rocket would work very poorly in such low pressure. If the argument is that the rockets were really only working because the initial gas from the rocket created enough pressure for the subsequent gases from the rocket to push against then, again, the rockets would work very poorly. As I pointed out above, in the video which shows the pressure gauge the needle barely moves, it at all, once the rocket fires. The bloke makes a point of explaining that he used a long tube for that exact season. So no one could make the silly argument that the rocket is pushing off the far end of the tube. The argument that it’s pushing off the initial gases from the rocket is even sillier when you consider the size of the tube and the fact that those initial gases will be travelling away from the rocket.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: model 29 on March 21, 2020, 08:09:15 PM
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: thors_evil_twin on March 22, 2020, 12:46:12 PM
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

Two guesses
#1 a hose does no work in a vacuum
#2 show us and experiment of a hose in space.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 22, 2020, 01:24:15 PM
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

Having tried the following for myself, I can report that if you hold the garden hose around 1 foot / 30 cm from the nozzle, then, with no water flow, the hose hangs limp. Turn on the water, and this raises the nozzle and straightens the hose to some extent, dependent on water flow rate. Turn water off, hose hangs limp again.

Where it gets interesting is if you introduce a firm, unyielding surface below the water flow, close to the nozzle, and repeat. This does not affect the behaviour of the hose in any way, you get exactly the same results.

Leave the water on, and move the nozzle sideways, such that it is either over the brick wall or not, and the hose does not change in attitude. It gets no "push" off the wall. 

Conclusion; the influences of outside elements, whether air or a brick wall, are not causing the force which raises and straightens the nozzle and hose.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 12:04:57 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.
Clearly wrong.

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

There is no way you can have it both ways.

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

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?

Why have gimbled engines if the plume is not part of the rocket, or has no effect?
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.[/quote]
They are - see my reply above.
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.
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.
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
Yes, it clearly does.

Gas, when released to a vacuum, does no work.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 12:08:00 PM
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?
No.

My argument is that until the rocket is present in a pressurized environment, it will not work.

Period.
The only issue with that is the video I originally posted about this shows the pressure gauge. Which you can see doesn't move after the rocket fires. Here are before and after stills from the video (again, attached, ffs can you please sort out your issue with the imgbb site.)

And the bloke explained how he made the tube long enough that the volume was big enough that the gas from the rocket was not enough to create any significant pressure in the tube. That is borne out by the lack of change in the gauge.

It's a silly argument anyway. The gas coming out of the rocket is, by definition, going away from the rocket at high speed. How can subsequent molecules push back off them to make the rocket move when the stream of gas is flowing in the same direction at the same speed?
Good thing I am not making that argument.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 12:19:07 PM
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?
No.

Then what does this mean then?

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

In those videos what creates the pressurized environment if it's not the gases from the rocket?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 12:25:57 PM
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?
No.

Then what does this mean then?

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

In those videos what creates the pressurized environment if it's not the gases from the rocket?
Everything except this portion = "the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?"

A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

The rocket pushes off its plume.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 12:28:31 PM
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 23, 2020, 01:14:12 PM
A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

The rocket pushes off its plume.

How does it do that, other than by contact with the plume?

How can the parts of the plume which have moved away from contact with the rocket hold any influence on the rocket?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
Equal and opposite reaction.
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.

It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2020, 03:27:24 PM
A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

The rocket pushes off its plume.

How does it do that, other than by contact with the plume?
It doesn't without contact between it and the plume.
How can the parts of the plume which have moved away from contact with the rocket hold any influence on the rocket?
Take a look at the video you posted of the rocket engine test.

The size and maintained strength of the plume are paramount.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 23, 2020, 05:05:28 PM
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
Equal and opposite reaction.

... which does not require a pressurised environment.


If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 24, 2020, 10:44:01 AM
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
Equal and opposite reaction.

... which does not require a pressurised environment.
In the case of gas being released to a vacuum, an equal and opposite reaction would be 0.

So, it does require a pressurized environment.
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2020, 10:54:36 AM
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 24, 2020, 11:00:14 AM
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.
It is rather obvious you are ignoring the videos and you fail to understand what the source states.
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 ways.
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?
You have no clue regarding science...at all.
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".
I think it is relatively clear.

You are the one claiming that gas can be somehow "FORCED," into a vacuum.

For the final time, it cannot.

Joules proved this.
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.
Disagreeing, while agreeing?

I wrote exactly to Tumeni.

And here you are, strawmanning the living daylights out of my reply, to set up some fake disagreement.

Not a good look on your part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rockets, being especially built for operation within a vacuum...wow...

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

And is what allows the rocket to function.
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
Thoroughly and definitively rebutted.

Your arguments are nonsensical, contradictory, and ignore all science.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 24, 2020, 11:01:11 AM
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2020, 01:18:46 PM
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

Yup, the combustion process in the chamber is unaffected by whatever is outside it.

The gun propels the bullet forward, because the bullet is light, is designed to break away from the casing, and because it has rapidly-expanding propellant behind it. The gun does not move backward to the same extent in recoil because it is heavier than the bullet, and because it is being held in place by the human firing it.

The bullet would leave the barrel regardless of whether you fire the gun in atmosphere or vacuum. The propellant in the casing fires without interaction with its surroundings outside the casing


- -

If the rocket had a "bullet" in the path of the expanding propellant/exhaust product, the same would result. The mass of the "bullet" would be ejected at speed from the nozzle, and the mass of the rocket would receive a recoil-like "push" in the opposite direction. The propellant drives the "bullet" out of the rocket regardless of what is outwith the nozzle. It doesn't care if there's atmosphere or vacuum outside, it just pushes the rocket in the opposite direction to the exhaust regardless.
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: iCare 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.
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
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.
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
Title: Re: More fake moon landing proof.
Post by: totallackey on March 24, 2020, 03:32:04 PM
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

Yup, the combustion process in the chamber is unaffected by whatever is outside it.
And the combustion chamber is not the nozzle.

The gas, resulting from the process taking place in the combustion chamber, is then let loose to the outside environment through the nozzle.

If the environment is pressurized, then a plume forms.

The rocket is able to react to the plume.

If the environment is a vacuum, then gas released to a vacuum does 0 work.

The equal and opposite reaction is 0.
The gun propels the bullet forward,
The gas caused by the powder igniting is what causes the bullet to go forward.