*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2064
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #260 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.
=============================
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 #261 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.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #262 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 ?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #263 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.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #264 on: March 09, 2020, 05:27:34 PM »
iCare why don't you provide a link to the repeatable scientific experiment which would enable you to  claim that a rocket engine will work in a vacuum?
  • See the recent posts of Tumeni and thors_evil_twin ... that it has been done in pratice and is pretty much done on a regular basis (i.e. keeping the ISS in orbit), should suffice.
  • As repeatedly stated, the previously discussed experiments showing that rockets will work at very low pressure indicate, that the same will bei true in a vacuum (in line with laws of physics), whereas there is no indication, that a total vacuum would be significant difference to very low pressure (actually that would be in conflict with accepted laws of physics).
  • Your claim, that rockets will not work because of Joule's Law / free expansion is wrong in any case. Even if rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, it wouldn't be because of Joule's Law.
The claim in this thread was, that rockets wouldn't work because of Joule's Law. This has been rebutted.
Accept, that you are wrong or prove that you are not ... the ball remains in your field ...

Which scientific experiment allows iCare to state that these laws don't apply to a rocket in a vacuum ?
As repeatedly explained, Joule's Law itself does, see below:

Your claim that Joules 2nd law does not apply to rockets in a vacuum needs to validated by such an experiment .
No, it is the other way round.
Joule's Law - as repeatedly explained - is based on a specific situation/setup/requirements: fixed amount of gas, no heat exchange, closed container
All three are different for rockets.
If you want to apply Joule's Law to rockets you have to show - for each of them - that Joule's Law still applies, despite you changing its parameters.

Otherwise your spouting bs .
Quite like you, to a finish a post - that was underwhelming to begin with - with foul language.    :(

iC

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #265 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.
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 #266 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"

« Last Edit: March 09, 2020, 06:39:06 PM by thors_evil_twin »
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #267 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.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #268 on: March 09, 2020, 06:34:21 PM »
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.
  • Your point being ...?
  • You claim, you prove ...
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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2064
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #269 on: March 09, 2020, 06:47:03 PM »
The operation of a rocket in space is a closed system, according to scientists.

Which ones?
=============================
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: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #270 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:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #271 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

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.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 03:56:29 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: 2064
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #272 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?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #273 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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #274 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?
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: 2064
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #275 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.
=============================
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 #276 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #277 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
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:


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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #278 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
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:


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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #279 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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)