Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #300 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?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 03:13:08 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 Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5863
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #301 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.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #302 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?
=============================
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 #303 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.
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 #304 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.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5863
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #305 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.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #306 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?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 03:36:45 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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5863
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #307 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!
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #308 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.
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: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #309 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?
=============================
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 #310 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?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #311 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
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9011
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #312 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.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #313 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?

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...
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 #314 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.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2020, 11:51:21 AM 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 #315 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?
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: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #316 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
"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 #317 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?
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.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #318 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 .

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



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.
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.