#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #220 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 .

#### Tumeni

• 2375
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #221 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### iCare

• 101
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #222 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
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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #223 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 .

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3708
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #224 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.
"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

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #225 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.

#### iCare

• 101
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #226 on: March 04, 2020, 03:54:31 PM »
Your posts are hard to decipher -
I think, if you kept my responses in context and quoted them correctly, it would make deciphering a lot easier.

Explain how a reactive force (thrust) is produced when there is no resistance to the free expansion of gas into a vacuum .
The same way - as explained over and over - it is produced, when there is resistance in an atmosphere (or in any other environment).
Thrust is produced (in short) by the chemical reaction of burning fuel; this is completely independent of the environment.
The force and reactive force are between the rocket and the gas (produced by the chemical reaction); where the gas "goes to", vacuum or atmosphere, doesn't really matter.

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

Therefore the reactive force of thrust is dependent on environment.
How do you get to that conclusion? Please explain.
Saying "a car can accelerate uphill" does not imply it "cannot accelerate downhill"; especially when explicitly stating "a car can accelerate downhill the same way it accelerates uphill".

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

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

Thrust is not produced by any chemical reaction , chemical reactions produce thermal energy .
That is - at best - a misleading statement.
• Chemical reactions don't only produce thermal energy; in the case of rockets they produce (at least) thermal energy and (a large amount of) gas.
• Chemical reactions can also consume thermal energy (An endothermic reaction is any chemical reaction that absorbs heat from its environment.)
Thrust is created when a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction; this happens in a rocket and is powered by the chemical reaction of burning rocket fuel.

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

where it encounters the resistive pressure of the air .
If there is air - yes. If there isn't, it doesn't make a signifikant difference.

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

It is a simple process and thrust has been shown by experiment and observation to be inversely proportional to the area over which the force acts.
Please provide an example of these experiments - I'm not sure what you're trying to convey.
I sounds like you're mixing up pressure and thrust?

Your claim that Joules law doesn't apply to rockets is claptrap as all physical laws apply as shown by all "rocket in a vacuum "video experiments  which are really "bomb in a vacuum" vids .
My claim is properly supported by logical deduction. Starting with the fact, that the requirements for Joule's Law are not met by rockets.
Joule's Law requires a closed volume and a constant amount of gas to be apllied correctly - as there is no closed volume (rockets are an open volume => exhaust) and the amount of gas increases (chemical reaction produces additional gas), it does not apply.
=> The videos, that have been posted in this discussion, do not demonstrate Joule's Law.

You could research and show me the definitive experiment that shows a rocket engine working in a vacuum along with the complete physical description but that doesn't exist -
I have already provided a quite detailed description of the physical (and chemical) process.
Thrust is an application of Newton's Laws, which as been proven (as even you confirm).
If you want to dispute Newton's Laws, it is up to you to provide prove to rebut them.

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

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

#### iCare

• 101
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #227 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.
So far my impression is, that AATW has demonstrated a much better understanding of the physical process than you have.

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #228 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.

#### thors_evil_twin

• 79
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #229 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 .
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

#### iCare

• 101
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #230 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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #231 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.

#### iCare

• 101
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #232 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 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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

#### thors_evil_twin

• 79
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #233 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.

FYI guns can be fired underwater too, check out the Slo-Mo Guys
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 08:19:08 PM by thors_evil_twin »
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

#### J-Man

• 787
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #234 on: March 05, 2020, 03:47:47 AM »
Do rockets work in a vacuum? Hell no...Just watch !!!

What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

#### stack

• 1602
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #235 on: March 05, 2020, 05:15:16 AM »
Do rockets work in a vacuum? Hell no...Just watch !!!

Looks like it was on the ground, not in a vacuum?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Tumeni

• 2375
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #236 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....?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #237 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 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 .

#### thors_evil_twin

• 79
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #238 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.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

#### totallackey

##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #239 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.