Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #80 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 .

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #81 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) 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #82 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?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #83 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #84 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.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #85 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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #86 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?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 02:53:55 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #87 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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #88 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #89 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?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #90 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 .

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #91 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.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #92 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.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #93 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.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #94 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.

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1456
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #95 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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #96 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 ...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #97 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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2237
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #98 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1456
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #99 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?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.