#### iCare

• 77
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #420 on: March 21, 2020, 12:01:48 PM »
Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.
I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions
• I do not need to provide an experiment to prove the scientific formula, you yourself have provided as proof. W = F x d. Enter an arbitrary value (other than 0) for F when d=0 => W=0, F<>0, formula is correct
• In contrast, it is up to you to prove, why 0=F x 0 (W=0, d=0) would be wrong for f<>0. That is at least (as pointed out before) a gap in your reasoning.
• Holding the mug stationary is still a valid experiment. d=0, so (by the formula you used yourself) W=0; F<>0, because if it were, your arm wouldn't tire. But it does, as you confirmed yourself.
So why are you refusing to address the flaws in your reasoning?
Why do you instead keep asking for an experiment (that has been provided) to prove a proven law?

Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .
I couldn't say, as there is no lack in my knowledge of the laws of physic (at least not concerning the basic stuff we are discussing).

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

#### Tumeni

• 1790
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #421 on: March 21, 2020, 12:22:40 PM »
Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.

You provided it. See my previous post outlining the contradiction of your two paragraphs
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### somerled

• 243
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #422 on: March 21, 2020, 01:49:44 PM »
Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.
I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions
• I do not need to provide an experiment to prove the scientific formula, you yourself have provided as proof. W = F x d. Enter an arbitrary value (other than 0) for F when d=0 => W=0, F<>0, formula is correct
• In contrast, it is up to you to prove, why 0=F x 0 (W=0, d=0) would be wrong for f<>0. That is at least (as pointed out before) a gap in your reasoning.
• Holding the mug stationary is still a valid experiment. d=0, so (by the formula you used yourself) W=0; F<>0, because if it were, your arm wouldn't tire. But it does, as you confirmed yourself.
So why are you refusing to address the flaws in your reasoning?
Why do you instead keep asking for an experiment (that has been provided) to prove a proven law?

Is there no limit to your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics .
I couldn't say, as there is no lack in my knowledge of the laws of physic (at least not concerning the basic stuff we are discussing).

iC
Then provide the scientific experiment and its data that enables you to make the claim that no work does not equal no force.

You erroneously equate "your take on things"- your words not mine - with  knowledge of the laws of physics yet you consistently are unable to provide any scientific experimental data to back up your gobshoite .

The laws of physics  are not subject to your take on things so show the experimental proof that a rocket engine will be able to convert thermal energy , which is not a force, into kinetic energy able to produce a force in  a vacuum.

Give the evasion and gobshoite sophistry a rest - just provide the scientific experiment that contradicts the Joules law which states that thermal energy does no work in a vacuum.

#### somerled

• 243
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #423 on: March 21, 2020, 02:41:33 PM »

Read the fourth sentence , it states unequivocally that work and force are directly proportional to each other . Now that means in plain language that when one of those is zero then so is the other. What proportion of force could be different if work = 0 and vice versa. You cant have half of zero or three times zero.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2885
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #424 on: March 21, 2020, 03:05:04 PM »
The laws of physics  are not subject to your take on things so show the experimental proof that a rocket engine will be able to convert thermal energy , which is not a force, into kinetic energy able to produce a force in  a vacuum.

Several videos of rockets working in a vacuum have been provided.

Quote
In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton's third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward.

This rule can be seen on Earth. Imagine a person standing on a skateboard. Imagine that person throwing a bowling ball. The ball will go forward. The person on the skateboard will move, too. The person will move backward. Because the person is heavier, the bowling ball will move farther.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html

Rockets work in a vacuum because of Newton’s laws. You are looking at other laws and extrapolating from those that rockets don’t work in a vacuum, but you are doing so erroneously.

The proof of that is you have failed to provide one credible scientific source which says that rockets can’t work in a volume.
So either literal rocket scientists are all wrong, or you are. I reckon it’s 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.

#### iCare

• 77
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #425 on: March 21, 2020, 04:19:08 PM »
Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim  when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.
I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions
Then provide the scientific experiment and its data that enables you to make the claim that no work does not equal no force.
Why should I provide an experiment to prove a law or an accepted (by you) formula?

You erroneously equate "your take on things"- your words not mine - with  knowledge of the laws of physics yet you consistently are unable to provide any scientific experimental data to back up your gobshoite .
That I - at one time - used the words "my take on things" neither implicates that every comment is "my take" nor does it make "my take" wrong.

W = F x d is not "my take", it is an formula you yourself brought forward as proof.
• F=0 => W=0: d may have any value; e.g. an objectis "coasting" along, no force applied; it will move a distance, but no work is performed.
• d=0 => W=0: F may have any value; e.g. an objectis "held stationary", no movement; force is applied, but no work is performed.
• F=0 and d=0 => W=0: an object remains stationary with no force applied.
There are three valid ways for W to be 0 (3 is somewhat redundant, but it is still a worth being listed).
You are claiming one of them (2) is invalid thereby disagreeing with accepted science (brought forward by yourself).
You are challenging laws of physics (not my take on it), so it is up to you, to come up with an experiment or other prove. Can you?

The laws of physics  are not subject to your take on things so show the experimental proof that a rocket engine will be able to convert thermal energy , which is not a force, into kinetic energy able to produce a force in  a vacuum.
Give the evasion and gobshoite sophistry a rest - just provide the scientific experiment that contradicts the Joules law which states that thermal energy does no work in a vacuum.
See above, they are, indeed, not. So they are not subject to your take either. Your take "no work => no force" is in conflict with the  laws of physics.

As you keep misquoting me:
• I do not question Joule's Law of Free Expansion, why would I need a experiment to agree with Joule's Law?
I'm simply pointing out, that your are using it wrongly ("your take" is in conflict with the laws of physics).
• Joule's Law of Free Expansion is not in conflict with rockets working in a vacuum.
• As the chemical reaction is taking place inside the rocket, creating and heating gas inside the rocket, it doesn't even have to do work in a vacuum. Rockets can function in a vacuum, because the external environment is not relevant to them (at least in our context).
• Joule's Law still doesn't apply to any situation, just because "vacuum" mentioned somewhere. It does not apply to how rockets work (as explained in previous posts).
I shouldn't have to ask, but did you even check, whom you are quoting?
"I am 17 years old and currently a high school senior. I created this page  to help track, showcase, and reflect on my progress in Physics."
This seems to have been written in 2013.
No offense to the author, but couldn't you find a quote from a more professional, peer reviewed source?
Regardless, what she has posted is correct. Your conclusion, however, is not.

Read the fourth sentence , it states unequivocally that work and force are directly proportional to each other . Now that means in plain language that when one of those is zero then so is the other. What proportion of force could be different if work = 0 and vice versa. You cant have half of zero or three times zero.
I did and it doesn't hint at any sophistry or wrong "take on things" on my side ... it shows, however, that you do not understand proportional functions/relations.

Given two variables x and y, y is directly proportional to x[1] if there is a non-zero constant k such that y=kx. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics))
As you correctly noted, you can't usefully half/double/... zero, that is why k must not be zero.

What your quote is actually saying (if you add basic mathematics) is that if F or d are zero, proportionality is not defined.
Which really makes sense, as the proportionality (k) constant can be expressed as the ratio k=x/y, which is not defined for y=0 (y=W=no work).

Also the first sentence in your reference is "In Physics, work is defined as the result of a force moving an object a certain distance."
=> The result of force not moving an object is not work.

To sum it up:

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

#### model 29

• 419
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #426 on: March 21, 2020, 04:54:40 PM »
If rockets use the combustion exhaust to 'push off air' in order to lift off, basically requiring a medium for the exhaust to push against, I'm curious what Totallackey and Somerled think would happen if the atmosphere were thicker.  Would rockets lift off faster?

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2885
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #427 on: March 21, 2020, 05:30:12 PM »
If rockets use the combustion exhaust to 'push off air' in order to lift off, basically requiring a medium for the exhaust to push against, I'm curious what Totallackey and Somerled think would happen if the atmosphere were thicker.  Would rockets lift off faster?
This is along the lines of a point I made to lackey a while back which he ignored.
Even if we concede that in the videos posted the vacuum is not perfect, it’s still good enough that the rocket would work very poorly in such low pressure. If the argument is that the rockets were really only working because the initial gas from the rocket created enough pressure for the subsequent gases from the rocket to push against then, again, the rockets would work very poorly. As I pointed out above, in the video which shows the pressure gauge the needle barely moves, it at all, once the rocket fires. The bloke makes a point of explaining that he used a long tube for that exact season. So no one could make the silly argument that the rocket is pushing off the far end of the tube. The argument that it’s pushing off the initial gases from the rocket is even sillier when you consider the size of the tube and the fact that those initial gases will be travelling away from the rocket.
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.

#### model 29

• 419
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #428 on: March 21, 2020, 08:09:15 PM »
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

#### thors_evil_twin

• 79
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #429 on: March 22, 2020, 12:46:12 PM »
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

Two guesses
#1 a hose does no work in a vacuum
#2 show us and experiment of a hose in space.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

#### Tumeni

• 1790
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #430 on: March 22, 2020, 01:24:15 PM »
Another question I'd like to ask of Totallackey and Somerled, when using a garden hose with a nozzle at full blast, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water pushes against the air as it comes out?

Having tried the following for myself, I can report that if you hold the garden hose around 1 foot / 30 cm from the nozzle, then, with no water flow, the hose hangs limp. Turn on the water, and this raises the nozzle and straightens the hose to some extent, dependent on water flow rate. Turn water off, hose hangs limp again.

Where it gets interesting is if you introduce a firm, unyielding surface below the water flow, close to the nozzle, and repeat. This does not affect the behaviour of the hose in any way, you get exactly the same results.

Leave the water on, and move the nozzle sideways, such that it is either over the brick wall or not, and the hose does not change in attitude. It gets no "push" off the wall.

Conclusion; the influences of outside elements, whether air or a brick wall, are not causing the force which raises and straightens the nozzle and hose.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### totallackey

• 1868
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #431 on: March 23, 2020, 12:04:57 PM »
Of course it has an impact on the rocket.
How can it do that, once it has left the rocket, and is no longer in contact with it?
A rocket exhaust is part of the rocket.
I usually try not bump into other subtreads, but as we have been disputing the same issue before:
No, it is not.
Rocket and exhaust are moving away from each other anyway, they are no longer part of each other.
What one does has no direct effect on the other.
One may consider them part of an (abstract) system, but that's a different story.
Clearly wrong.

There is no way you can have it both ways.

This is approaching magical territory in the level of claim being made here.

Are you one of those claiming a door could be opened in the bottom of the rocket, bricks could tumble out and the rocket would still launch from the pad?

Why have gimbled engines if the plume is not part of the rocket, or has no effect?
The rocket and the plume are one.
The plume is consistently in contact with the bell nozzles as long as it is running.
The plume is consistently maintained within itself as long as there is a pressurized environment to contain it.
No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
They are - see above - not.[/quote]
They are - see my reply above.
Also "the plume" is not a static entity. As an abstract maybe, but in reality, the gas in contact with the rocket is constantly changing as it's moving away from the rocket being replaced with "new" gas.
Denies the plume is part of the rocket, yet here^ admits it is.
So the plume is never contained within itself, as in any environment its "contents" are moving away from the rocket backwards and dissipating.
Yes it is.
By the pressure of the atmoplane.
Without outside pressure, the plume will just dissipate more quickly (which doesn't matter, as thrust has been created before that), as it is not constrained by external pressure, but it will still be there.

"And no work" doesn't apply anyway.

iC
Yes, it clearly does.

Gas, when released to a vacuum, does no work.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

#### totallackey

• 1868
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #432 on: March 23, 2020, 12:08:00 PM »
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?
No.

My argument is that until the rocket is present in a pressurized environment, it will not work.

Period.
The only issue with that is the video I originally posted about this shows the pressure gauge. Which you can see doesn't move after the rocket fires. Here are before and after stills from the video (again, attached, ffs can you please sort out your issue with the imgbb site.)

And the bloke explained how he made the tube long enough that the volume was big enough that the gas from the rocket was not enough to create any significant pressure in the tube. That is borne out by the lack of change in the gauge.

It's a silly argument anyway. The gas coming out of the rocket is, by definition, going away from the rocket at high speed. How can subsequent molecules push back off them to make the rocket move when the stream of gas is flowing in the same direction at the same speed?
Good thing I am not making that argument.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2885
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #433 on: March 23, 2020, 12:19:07 PM »
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?
No.

Then what does this mean then?

Quote
What happens when the rockets go off in these videos?
They remain perfectly still, until such time a pressurized environment exists...

In those videos what creates the pressurized environment if it's not the gases from the rocket?
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.

#### totallackey

• 1868
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #434 on: March 23, 2020, 12:25:57 PM »
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
I think your argument is that the gas from the rocket vents into the vacuum and that then creates the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?
No.

Then what does this mean then?

Quote
What happens when the rockets go off in these videos?
They remain perfectly still, until such time a pressurized environment exists...

In those videos what creates the pressurized environment if it's not the gases from the rocket?
Everything except this portion = "the pressure needed to "push off" to make the rocket move?"

A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2885
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #435 on: March 23, 2020, 12:28:31 PM »
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
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.

#### Tumeni

• 1790
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #436 on: March 23, 2020, 01:14:12 PM »
A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

The rocket pushes off its plume.

How does it do that, other than by contact with the plume?

How can the parts of the plume which have moved away from contact with the rocket hold any influence on the rocket?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### totallackey

• 1868
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #437 on: March 23, 2020, 03:24:33 PM »
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
Equal and opposite reaction.
If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.

It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

#### totallackey

• 1868
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #438 on: March 23, 2020, 03:27:24 PM »
A pressurized environment is necessary to contain the plume.

The rocket pushes off its plume.

How does it do that, other than by contact with the plume?
It doesn't without contact between it and the plume.
How can the parts of the plume which have moved away from contact with the rocket hold any influence on the rocket?
Take a look at the video you posted of the rocket engine test.

The size and maintained strength of the plume are paramount.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

#### Tumeni

• 1790
##### Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #439 on: March 23, 2020, 05:05:28 PM »
The rocket pushes off its plume.
I see. And how does that work when the plume is moving away from the rocket at high speed?
Equal and opposite reaction.

... which does not require a pressurised environment.

If a load of bricks just fell by gravity out of the bottom of a rocket then no, of course no force would be generated.
If they were propelled out of the rocket by some explosive force then yes it would. Like when a gun recoils.
It is not the bullet that causes the recoil.
It is the pressure behind the bullet that causes the recoil.

AATW didn't say it was the bullet that caused it

So you agree it's the pressure and rapid expansion of the propellant, in the bullet casing, acting upon the rear surface of the casing, that causes the recoil?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?