Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #100 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.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 03:46:11 PM by totallackey »
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #101 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #102 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #103 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"?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #104 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #105 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?
=============================
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: 1362
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #106 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?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #107 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #108 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"?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #109 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #110 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).
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #111 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...
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #112 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?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #113 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #114 on: February 17, 2020, 04:16:46 PM »
So how is momentum conserved ?????
And NO the answer is not 0 = 0
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #115 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?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 04:33:45 PM by totallackey »
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #116 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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #117 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #118 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?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #119 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.