Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #440 on: March 23, 2020, 05:58:38 PM »
If you try to move your body away from your arm, you will (hopefully) fail and your arm will follow your body.
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.
We have already written about this at length, and here science clearly disagrees with you.
Clearly wrong ... why?
We have written about it, you have failed to prove your point and the source you provided agrees with me.

There is no way you can have it both ways.
Which two ways are you referring to?
That the plume is not part of the rocket does not preclude that they can both be part of the same system or influence each other.

This is approaching magical territory in the level of claim being made here.
Any "claims" I made, are based on accepted scientific laws and their correct application; nothing magical about it.
If this seems like magic to you, you might consider reviewing the science?

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?
No, why would I?

If bricks "freely" tumble out of the rocket it would not effect the rocket except for it getting lighter.
If the rocket was a balloon "dropping ballast", that could make it lift off, but that's a different principle.

However, if bricks were "ejected" from the bottom of the rocket, there would be an equal force pushing the rocket up.
In reality it would be difficult, however, to eject enough bricks at high a enough speed to actually launch a "brick rocket".
 
Why have gimbled engines if the plume is not part of the rocket, or has no effect?
You really need to get a better understanding of the total system and pay more attention to detail.
Not being part of is not the same as having no effect.
As in a gimbaled rocket the direction of the exhaust is changed, obviously the direction of the force accelerating the rocket will also change.
Also if the exhausts "hits" anything, including a part of the rocket (e.g. a fin), that will have an effect on that object.

No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
So ... in an atmosphere, there is plume, as - by your explanation - it is pushing against the atmosphere.
Where, when there is no atmoshere, does this plume (magically?) disappear to?

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.
Where do you see any "admitting" in that quote?
As mentioned above, not being part of a rocket does not equal having no effect on it.
While e.g. within within the confines of the nozzle, the exhaust will naturally have a stronger effect on the rocket.
After being expelled that effect will quickly diminish.

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.
Depends on you definition of contained, but generally ... no.
There is no barrier between the "atmoplane" and the plume.They will mix, no containment.
That does not preclude, that different atmospheric pressure will have an effect on the shape of the plume; it is actually the reason why rockets built for different environments (including vacuum) have differently shaped nozzles.

Gas, when released to a vacuum, does no work.
As you provide no further argument, my explanation why this is not relevant to the way rockets work, stands unrebutted.

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 #441 on: March 24, 2020, 10:44:01 AM »
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.
In the case of gas being released to a vacuum, an equal and opposite reaction would be 0.

So, it does require a pressurized 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?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #442 on: March 24, 2020, 10:54:36 AM »
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?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
=============================
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 #443 on: March 24, 2020, 11:00:14 AM »
If you try to move your body away from your arm, you will (hopefully) fail and your arm will follow your body.
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.
We have already written about this at length, and here science clearly disagrees with you.
Clearly wrong ... why?
We have written about it, you have failed to prove your point and the source you provided agrees with me.
It is rather obvious you are ignoring the videos and you fail to understand what the source states.
There is no way you can have it both ways.
Which two ways are you referring to?
That the plume is not part of the rocket does not preclude that they can both be part of the same system or influence each other.
1) You disagreed with my source initially (which states a rocket is a closed system), with you claiming it is not.
2) You claimed they are not part of the same system, since you do seem to agree a force pair is necessary.
3) Ergo, you are trying to have it both ways.
This is approaching magical territory in the level of claim being made here.
Any "claims" I made, are based on accepted scientific laws and their correct application; nothing magical about it.
If this seems like magic to you, you might consider reviewing the science?
You have no clue regarding science...at all.
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?
No, why would I?

If bricks "freely" tumble out of the rocket it would not effect the rocket except for it getting lighter.
If the rocket was a balloon "dropping ballast", that could make it lift off, but that's a different principle.

However, if bricks were "ejected" from the bottom of the rocket, there would be an equal force pushing the rocket up.
In reality it would be difficult, however, to eject enough bricks at high a enough speed to actually launch a "brick rocket".
I think it is relatively clear.

You are the one claiming that gas can be somehow "FORCED," into a vacuum.

For the final time, it cannot.

Joules proved this.
Why have gimbled engines if the plume is not part of the rocket, or has no effect?
You really need to get a better understanding of the total system and pay more attention to detail.
Not being part of is not the same as having no effect.
As in a gimbaled rocket the direction of the exhaust is changed, obviously the direction of the force accelerating the rocket will also change.
Also if the exhausts "hits" anything, including a part of the rocket (e.g. a fin), that will have an effect on that object.
Disagreeing, while agreeing?

I wrote exactly to Tumeni.

And here you are, strawmanning the living daylights out of my reply, to set up some fake disagreement.

Not a good look on your part.
No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
So ... in an atmosphere, there is plume, as - by your explanation - it is pushing against the atmosphere.
Where, when there is no atmoshere, does this plume (magically?) disappear to?
You cannot "FORCE," gas into a vacuum.

Gas, when released to a vacuum, finds no container, and freely expands.

As proven by Joules.
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.
Where do you see any "admitting" in that quote?
As mentioned above, not being part of a rocket does not equal having no effect on it.
While e.g. within within the confines of the nozzle, the exhaust will naturally have a stronger effect on the rocket.
After being expelled that effect will quickly diminish.
Since the plume is constantly throttled (and being ultimately confined within itself by the pressurized environment), it will always have an effect on the rocket.
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.
Depends on you definition of contained, but generally ... no.
There is no barrier between the "atmoplane" and the plume.They will mix, no containment.
That does not preclude, that different atmospheric pressure will have an effect on the shape of the plume; it is actually the reason why rockets built for different environments (including vacuum) have differently shaped nozzles.
Rockets, being especially built for operation within a vacuum...wow...

It is readily apparent to any viewer the plume is contained by the atmoplane...

And is what allows the rocket to function.
Gas, when released to a vacuum, does no work.
As you provide no further argument, my explanation why this is not relevant to the way rockets work, stands unrebutted.

iC
Thoroughly and definitively rebutted.

Your arguments are nonsensical, contradictory, and ignore all science.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2020, 03:32:46 PM by totallackey »
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #444 on: March 24, 2020, 11:01:11 AM »
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?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

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

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #445 on: March 24, 2020, 01:18:46 PM »
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?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

Yup, the combustion process in the chamber is unaffected by whatever is outside it.

The gun propels the bullet forward, because the bullet is light, is designed to break away from the casing, and because it has rapidly-expanding propellant behind it. The gun does not move backward to the same extent in recoil because it is heavier than the bullet, and because it is being held in place by the human firing it.

The bullet would leave the barrel regardless of whether you fire the gun in atmosphere or vacuum. The propellant in the casing fires without interaction with its surroundings outside the casing


- -

If the rocket had a "bullet" in the path of the expanding propellant/exhaust product, the same would result. The mass of the "bullet" would be ejected at speed from the nozzle, and the mass of the rocket would receive a recoil-like "push" in the opposite direction. The propellant drives the "bullet" out of the rocket regardless of what is outwith the nozzle. It doesn't care if there's atmosphere or vacuum outside, it just pushes the rocket in the opposite direction to the exhaust regardless.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #446 on: March 24, 2020, 01:42:43 PM »
It is rather obvious you are ignoring the videos and you fail to understand what the source states.
If it is so obvious, please substantiate your claim.
I can assure you, I haven't ignored the videos and I do understand what the source states.
If that does not match your understanding, it might as well be you, who doesn't understand it, might it not?

There is no way you can have it both ways.
Which two ways are you referring to?
That the plume is not part of the rocket does not preclude that they can both be part of the same system or influence each other.
1) You disagreed with my source initially (which states a rocket is a closed system), with you claiming it is not.
2) You claimed they are not part of the same system, since you do seem to agree a force pair is necessary.
3) Ergo, you are trying to have it both way.
  • I did not disagree with your source, which does not state that a rocket is a closed system; it did - for a specific circumstances/parameters and a specific purpose - define rocket & fuel as a closed system.
    I disagreed with your understanding of it and your conclusions. Those circumstances/parameters are different from those of free expansion.
  • I did state, that the exhaust is no longer part of the rocket (it has been "exhausted"). It can still be part of the same system (depending on the definition of that system).
    The existence of a force pair is independent of said pair being in the same system or between systems.
    Several different systems can be defined, that validly describe reality or aspects of it.
  • I can have it multiple ways, as long as those ways are correct (they are) and are not in conflict with each other (they are not).
    It is a common and useful practice in science to approach problems from multiple perspectives.
You have no clue regarding science...at all.
See above. You could only credibly conclude that, if you had more or at least the same clue regarding science that I have.
The reasoning you have brought forward so far, makes that highly unlikely.

You are the one claiming that gas can be somehow "FORCED," into a vacuum.
For the final time, it cannot.
Joules proved this.
You can call it final as often as you want, that is not what Joules proved.
If there is no resistance, gas does not need to be forced; it does not mean it cannot be forced.
If you let go of a ball, you don't need to push it to fall down; that doesn't mean you can't still throw it down.
With a rocket engine there is resistance by the simple fact of the nozzle restricting the flow of gas created by the chemical reaction. There is a force. This is not (in conflict) with Joule's law of Free Expansion.

Not being part of is not the same as having no effect.
As in a gimbaled rocket the direction of the exhaust is changed, obviously the direction of the force accelerating the rocket will also change.
Also if the exhausts "hits" anything, including a part of the rocket (e.g. a fin), that will have an effect on that object.
Disagreeing, while agreeing?
What do you think I'm agreeing to and what do you think im disagreeing with at the same time?

No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
So ... in an atmosphere, there is plume, as - by your explanation - it is pushing against the atmosphere.
Where, when there is no atmoshere, does this plume (magically?) disappear to?
You cannot "FORCE," gas into a vacuum.
Gas, when released to a vacuum, finds no container, and freely expands.
As proven by Joules.
Joules has proven, that gas meeting no resistance in an enlarging volume (as part of it is contains a vacuum) expands freely within the volume.
He has not proven, that
  • it cannot be forced.
  • this would also be the case, if it were expanding "outside" a closed volume (he didn't have the means to do such an experiment).
  • this would also be the case, if energy were added to that gas (that is explicitly prevented in his free expansion experiment).
Since the plume is constantly throttled (and being ultimately confined within itself by the pressurized environment), it will always have an effect on the rocket.
  • If the plume was confined in itself, it would have to constantly growing, as fuel keeps being burned. It doesn't. I will reach a certain size and all exhaust beyond that will dissipate into the atmosphere.
  • What effect, do you think, would it have on the rocket, if a part of the plume (let's assume somewhere in the middle) would be moved in some direction (i.e. by wind)?
It is readily apparent to any viewer the plume is contained by the atmoplane...
See above. It is readily apparent to any viewer, that it is not, as it disperses into the atmosphere.

And is what allows the rocket to function.
If it was contained, then how could it function in an atmosphere?
If - by your claim - rocket and exhaust/plume are a closed system, rockets couldn't work within an atmosphere as the closed system would remain static in relation to the outside. 

Thoroughly and definitively rebutted.
Your arguments are nonsensical, contradictory, and ignore all science.

Not at all.
Claiming rebuttal over and over again without credible or at least new reasons doesn't make it any more credible, just redundant.
Science - including you're source - agrees, that rockets work in a vacuum.
So how can I be ignoring science, when I concur with it?
How can you claim to understand science, when your claims are in conflict with it?

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 #447 on: March 24, 2020, 03:32:04 PM »
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?
All taking place in a temporary pressurized environment of the barrel, regardless of the outside environment in which the gun is placed.

In a similar fashion to the rocket combustion reaction, taking place in a combustion chamber, regardless of the outside environment in which the rocket is placed.
The combustion chamber of a rocket...

Not exposed to a vacuum.

Yup, the combustion process in the chamber is unaffected by whatever is outside it.
And the combustion chamber is not the nozzle.

The gas, resulting from the process taking place in the combustion chamber, is then let loose to the outside environment through the nozzle.

If the environment is pressurized, then a plume forms.

The rocket is able to react to the plume.

If the environment is a vacuum, then gas released to a vacuum does 0 work.

The equal and opposite reaction is 0.
The gun propels the bullet forward,
The gas caused by the powder igniting is what causes the bullet to go forward.
because the bullet is light, is designed to break away from the casing, and because it has rapidly-expanding propellant behind it.
As you acknowledge here.
The gun does not move backward to the same extent in recoil because it is heavier than the bullet, and because it is being held in place by the human firing it.
True, but it is an equal and opposite reaction nonetheless...
The bullet would leave the barrel regardless of whether you fire the gun in atmosphere or vacuum. The propellant in the casing fires without interaction with its surroundings outside the casing
True. Because the gas is able to maintain pressure and work behind the expanding bullet.

The barrel of the gun is a pressurized environment until the bullet leaves the barrel.
If the rocket had a "bullet" in the path of the expanding propellant/exhaust product, the same would result. The mass of the "bullet" would be ejected at speed from the nozzle, and the mass of the rocket would receive a recoil-like "push" in the opposite direction. The propellant drives the "bullet" out of the rocket regardless of what is outwith the nozzle. It doesn't care if there's atmosphere or vacuum outside, it just pushes the rocket in the opposite direction to the exhaust regardless.
Gas needs to be released to a pressurized environment in order to accomplish work.

You describe the entire process, yet somehow think and maintain that gas, when released to a vacuum, somehow does work, when the science says it clearly does...

Since a rocket is only firing "gas," into a vacuum, then it cannot accomplish a reaction to 0 work, except 0 reaction.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1790
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #448 on: March 24, 2020, 03:39:50 PM »
If the environment is pressurized, then a plume forms.

What do you think stops a plume from forming in a vacuum?


The gas caused by the powder igniting is what causes the bullet to go forward.

I refer to the gun as a whole, when contrasting it to the rocket as a whole. Yes, a sub-part of the gun does this.

You need the overall whole system of the gun, same as you need the overall whole system of the rocket.


The barrel of the gun is a pressurized environment until the bullet leaves the barrel.

The combustion chamber of the rocket is also so, with the combustion product leaving via the nozzle. You don't see the similarity?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2020, 03:46:18 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
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 #449 on: March 24, 2020, 03:55:29 PM »
It is rather obvious you are ignoring the videos and you fail to understand what the source states.
If it is so obvious, please substantiate your claim.
I can assure you, I haven't ignored the videos
Each of the videos presented here definitively show none of the rockets working until such time a pressurized environment exists.

You are ignoring this fact.
and I do understand what the source states.
If that does not match your understanding, it might as well be you, who doesn't understand it, might it not?
No, I understand a rocket is a closed system.

A rocket does not exchange energy with an outside source.
There is no way you can have it both ways.
Which two ways are you referring to?
That the plume is not part of the rocket does not preclude that they can both be part of the same system or influence each other.
1) You disagreed with my source initially (which states a rocket is a closed system), with you claiming it is not.
2) You claimed they are not part of the same system, since you do seem to agree a force pair is necessary.
3) Ergo, you are trying to have it both way.
  • I did not disagree with your source, which does not state that a rocket is a closed system; it did - for a specific circumstances/parameters and a specific purpose - define rocket & fuel as a closed system.
Again with the contradictions.

My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.

You write a rocket is not a closed system and then quote the source stating it is a closed system.

Please stop.
I disagreed with your understanding of it and your conclusions. Those circumstances/parameters are different from those of free expansion.[/li]
[li]I did state, that the exhaust is no longer part of the rocket (it has been "exhausted"). It can still be part of the same system (depending on the definition of that system).
The existence of a force pair is independent of said pair being in the same system or between systems.
Several different systems can be defined, that validly describe reality or aspects of it.[/li]
[li]I can have it multiple ways, as long as those ways are correct (they are) and are not in conflict with each other (they are not).
It is a common and useful practice in science to approach problems from multiple perspectives.[/li]
[/list]
Wow...just so much written, twisted about itself... to a point defying credulity.
You have no clue regarding science...at all.
See above. You could only credibly conclude that, if you had more or at least the same clue regarding science that I have.
The reasoning you have brought forward so far, makes that highly unlikely.
Yeah, pointing to the clear evidence in the videos, all showing that pressure is required for gas to do work...

I see how reason fails to be a consideration for your thought process...
You are the one claiming that gas can be somehow "FORCED," into a vacuum.
For the final time, it cannot.
Joules proved this.
You can call it final as often as you want, that is not what Joules proved.
Yes, it is.
If there is no resistance, gas does not need to be forced; it does not mean it cannot be forced.
Yes, it does.
If you let go of a ball, you don't need to push it to fall down; that doesn't mean you can't still throw it down.
Try pointing to something else you can physically grasp and equate it with a mass of gas...go ahead...try a banana...not = gas.

Spare me and the rest the false equivalencies.
With a rocket engine there is resistance by the simple fact of the nozzle restricting the flow of gas created by the chemical reaction. There is a force. This is not (in conflict) with Joule's law of Free Expansion.
Restricting the flow of gas to a vacuum is not going to result in the gas being able to do work.
Not being part of is not the same as having no effect.
As in a gimbaled rocket the direction of the exhaust is changed, obviously the direction of the force accelerating the rocket will also change.
Also if the exhausts "hits" anything, including a part of the rocket (e.g. a fin), that will have an effect on that object.
Disagreeing, while agreeing?
What do you think I'm agreeing to and what do you think im disagreeing with at the same time?
It is evident you are disagreeing with science.
No outside pressure, then no plume....and no work.
So ... in an atmosphere, there is plume, as - by your explanation - it is pushing against the atmosphere.
Where, when there is no atmoshere, does this plume (magically?) disappear to?
You cannot "FORCE," gas into a vacuum.
Gas, when released to a vacuum, finds no container, and freely expands.
As proven by Joules.
Joules has proven, that gas meeting no resistance in an enlarging volume (as part of it is contains a vacuum) expands freely within the volume.
He has not proven, that
  • it cannot be forced.
  • this would also be the case, if it were expanding "outside" a closed volume (he didn't have the means to do such an experiment).
  • this would also be the case, if energy were added to that gas (that is explicitly prevented in his free expansion experiment).
Joules proved that gas released to a vacuum does no work.

My god, all gas is energized by the process of placing it into a container. When that container opened to a vacuum, the gas does no work.
Since the plume is constantly throttled (and being ultimately confined within itself by the pressurized environment), it will always have an effect on the rocket.
  • If the plume was confined in itself, it would have to constantly growing, as fuel keeps being burned. It doesn't. I will reach a certain size and all exhaust beyond that will dissipate into the atmosphere.
Another contradiction, all contained within three short sentences.
  • What effect, do you think, would it have on the rocket, if a part of the plume (let's assume somewhere in the middle) would be moved in some direction (i.e. by wind)?
The direction of the plume determines the direction of the rocket.
It is readily apparent to any viewer the plume is contained by the atmoplane...
See above. It is readily apparent to any viewer, that it is not, as it disperses into the atmosphere.
The readers can look at any rocket video and make their own determination as to who is right.
And is what allows the rocket to function.
If it was contained, then how could it function in an atmosphere?
If - by your claim - rocket and exhaust/plume are a closed system, rockets couldn't work within an atmosphere as the closed system would remain static in relation to the outside.
It is closed, as it derives no outside energy from the environment.

You don't even know what a closed system is...this could be an issue.
Thoroughly and definitively rebutted.
Your arguments are nonsensical, contradictory, and ignore all science.

Not at all.
Claiming rebuttal over and over again without credible or at least new reasons doesn't make it any more credible, just redundant.
Science - including you're source - agrees, that rockets work in a vacuum.
So how can I be ignoring science, when I concur with it?
How can you claim to understand science, when your claims are in conflict with it?

iC
Science agrees that rockets do not work in a vacuum.

As evidenced by the videos presented here.
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 #450 on: March 24, 2020, 03:58:30 PM »
If the environment is pressurized, then a plume forms.

What do you think stops a plume from forming in a vacuum?
Free expansion of gas.
The gas caused by the powder igniting is what causes the bullet to go forward.

I refer to the gun as a whole, when contrasting it to the rocket as a whole. Yes, a sub-part of the gun does this.

You need the overall whole system of the gun, same as you need the overall whole system of the rocket.
Okay.
The barrel of the gun is a pressurized environment until the bullet leaves the barrel.

The combustion chamber of the rocket is also so, with the combustion product leaving via the nozzle. You don't see the similarity?
Yes, a combustion chamber is a pressurized environment.

However, it isn't the same at all.

No similarity whatsoever.

What is the bullet?
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 #451 on: March 24, 2020, 04:24:34 PM »
Okay Boomer,

An enclosed/sealed system is not equal to a "closed" system.

Joules experiment took place in an enclosed/sealed chamber, that was the only kind of chamber he could construct in 1845.

A rocket may be defined as a closed system with respect to the rocket/burning fuel, during its ascent into orbit it may be several closed systems.
1. cargo capsule, main vehicle, full payload of fuel, boosters
2. cargo capsule, main vehicle, full payload of fuel
3. cargo capsule, main vehicle, partial payload of fuel
4. cargo capsule, main vehicle
5. cargo capsule

Each one of these could be treated as a closed system. FYI with each lose of a component the remaining components accelerate.

So when a scientist refers to a closed system, the definition is not a single entity, and it's parameters are defined by the nature of the question.
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 #452 on: March 24, 2020, 07:56:24 PM »
Each of the videos presented here definitively show none of the rockets working until such time a pressurized environment exists.
That may be what you want to see in them, but it cannot validly be concluded from those videos.
First of all, those experiments are more "proof of concept" on an enthusiast level than reliable scientific experiments. (No offence to the creators; I appreciate their effort and the experiments do illustrated some aspects well.)
We don't really know enough about the setup and all parameters in detail to tell if what you believe to see is a direct result of pressure rising or just coincidence. 
 
You are ignoring this fact.
No, I'm critically evaluating that fact - and those Videos do not show what you claim they do.

No, I understand a rocket is a closed system.
My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.
Weren't you the one, who said one couldn't have it both ways? 
Now, is it a rocket or is it a rocket and its fuel?
My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.
And what type of closed system are you talking about? As used in physics, chemistry, engineering or colloquial language? Are you aware, there is a difference?

A rocket does not exchange energy with an outside source.
Although this isn't really the point here, a closed system in physics may exchange energy with the outside.
It must not exchange mass, which is why your source made that definition/assumption: For the calculations to be made the way they did, the total mass in the system needs to be constant, i.e. rocket & fuel & exhaust.
For Joule's experiment on Free Expansion in contrast, an isolated system is required.

I did not disagree with your source, which does not state that a rocket is a closed system; it did - for a specific circumstances/parameters and a specific purpose - define rocket & fuel as a closed system.
Again with the contradictions.
My source states a rocket and its fuel are a closed system.
You write a rocket is not a closed system and then quote the source stating it is a closed system.
If you would  pay attention to the details (which is highly advisable in science), you would see that there is no contradiction.
You keep ignoring, that talking about "a rocket" and "a rocket and its fuel (and the resulting exhaust)" is not the same thing.

You have no clue regarding science...at all.
See above. You could only credibly conclude that, if you had more or at least the same clue regarding science that I have.
The reasoning you have brought forward so far, makes that highly unlikely.
Yeah, pointing to the clear evidence in the videos, all showing that pressure is required for gas to do work...
Let me see ...
You link your understanding of science to homemade videos from some enthusiasts on youtube. (No offence, I appreciate their effort, but are they a valid scientific source?)
I link my understanding of science to the actual and commonly accepted scientific laws.
Which confirms my impression: highly unlikely.

I see how reason fails to be a consideration for your thought process...
How do you see that?
I have provided reasons and details on the logical deduction for what I stated. Obviously reason is an integral part of my thought processes. 

Try pointing to something else you can physically grasp and equate it with a mass of gas...go ahead...try a banana...not = gas.
It's really a pity that you fail to recognize which aspects of science can be transferred between different "experiments" (gas and balls are masses, so e.g. Newton's Laws will apply) and which can't (results from an isolated system to an open/closed system).

Spare me and the rest the false equivalencies.
They only seem false, if one doesn't understand them.
I you think you do, please point out why you doubt the equivalency as far as the point I made is concerned: That you do not need to apply force, does not automatically mean, that cannot apply force.

My god, all gas is energized by the process of placing it into a container. When that container opened to a vacuum, the gas does no work.
Actually, it is not.
Take an open container full of air, put an airtight lid on it ... the energy of the gas in the container will not change.
What happens when you open that container depends on how it is opened.

The direction of the plume determines the direction of the rocket.
Actually, it doesn't.
The plume will simply continue in whichever direction it was expelled from the rocket - which is, in deed, usually opposite to the direction the rocket is acceleration in.
But taking your example of the gimballed rocket, the plume will to a degree point in the direction the rocket is turning. And that direction can be changing constantly due to the gimbal.
Also, when starting jets from an aircraft carrier, their plume will be deflected upwards to protect people/equipment behind them. This has no effect on the direction in which the jets accelerate.

You don't even know what a closed system is...this could be an issue.
Indeed, but see above ... it is not me who doesn't know what a closed system is and how do utilize the clever definition of systems in science.

Science agrees that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Let me come back to your source:
"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); as a result, momentum is conserved for this system."
Your source obviously believes rockets work in a vacuum (I am sure in "deep space" there is a vacuum.).
Also it states, that the vacuum is a requirement for the definition of "the rocket + fuel" as a closed system.
And "rocket & fuel" are only a closed system, if defined that way. => Defined another (valid) way, they need not be.

In this thread "Conservation of momentum" has been decidedly opposed as not being a reason for why rockets would work in a vacuum.
So you agree, that conservation of momentum is part of why rockets work?

As evidenced by the videos presented here.
Those videos provide no such evidence, just as your source doesn't.

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 #453 on: March 25, 2020, 10:14:03 AM »
Okay Boomer,

An enclosed/sealed system is not equal to a "closed" system.

Joules experiment took place in an enclosed/sealed chamber, that was the only kind of chamber he could construct in 1845.

A rocket may be defined as a closed system with respect to the rocket/burning fuel, during its ascent into orbit it may be several closed systems.
1. cargo capsule, main vehicle, full payload of fuel, boosters
2. cargo capsule, main vehicle, full payload of fuel
3. cargo capsule, main vehicle, partial payload of fuel
4. cargo capsule, main vehicle
5. cargo capsule

Each one of these could be treated as a closed system. FYI with each lose of a component the remaining components accelerate.

So when a scientist refers to a closed system, the definition is not a single entity, and it's parameters are defined by the nature of the question.
Considering I never claimed anything near what you put out in this post...

A closed system is one that doesn't exchange energy with its environment.

A rocket is just that.
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 #454 on: March 25, 2020, 12:29:08 PM »
My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.
Compare this...^

to...
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.
this ^ as proof of your contradictory statements.

Plus again, you clearly demonstrate a failure to understand the definition of the word "exchange."
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 #455 on: March 25, 2020, 12:54:08 PM »
My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.
Compare this...^

to...
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.
this ^ as proof of your contradictory statements.
If you'd give any substantiating reason or explanation for your claim, we could engage in a discussion to learn which statements/claims are valid and which are not.
As you don't, it's once again just an unproven claim.
  • A closed system (as usually defined in physics) does not allow the exchange of mass. Mass (gas) is leaving the "enclosure of the rocket", that is an exchange with the environment. Using that definition, the rocket is not a closed system.
  • If one extends the view to include rocket + fuel + exhaust (given there are no external forces acting on this system, as would be the case in a vacuum), that system can be considered a closed physical system. Your source names force, but it also applies to exchange of mass.

Both perfectly valid statements, that don't contradict each other.
If you think otherwise, please prove it or at least explain why.

Plus again, you clearly demonstrate a failure to understand the definition of the word "exchange."
If you'd give any substantiating reason or explanation for your claim, we could engage in a discussion to learn which statements/claims are valid and which are not.
As you don't, it's once again just an unproven claim.
What is, by your understanding, the definition of "exchange" and what do think is wrong with mine?

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 #456 on: March 25, 2020, 03:49:33 PM »
My both ways are both valid; yours aren't. As the exhaust definitely leaves the rocket (=> exchange of mass), it can't be a closed system.
Compare this...^

to...
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.
this ^ as proof of your contradictory statements.
If you'd give any substantiating reason or explanation for your claim, we could engage in a discussion to learn which statements/claims are valid and which are not.
As you don't, it's once again just an unproven claim.
  • A closed system (as usually defined in physics) does not allow the exchange of mass. Mass (gas) is leaving the "enclosure of the rocket", that is an exchange with the environment. Using that definition, the rocket is not a closed system.
Fan-freaking-tastic!

Now, please explain what mass is COMING IN to the rocket from the environment!

Because the word EXCHANGE means exactly that!

I give you something in EXCHANGE for something!

Nuff said...
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 #457 on: March 25, 2020, 05:37:01 PM »
Now, please explain what mass is COMING IN to the rocket from the environment!
Why should any mass come into the rocket from the environment during burn?

The definition of an open system is that it can exchange matter, not that it actually must do so.
A rocket before ignition is still an open system, because it can exchange matter with the environment - although it isn't doing so at that specific time.
When ignited, it will expel gas.
When idle, wind could blow air, leaves or whatever into the the rocket. (You could also consider adding fuel as matter coming into the rocket.)
So when talking about open/closed/isolated systems "exchange" obviously means that transfer of matter is possible in both directions.
It does not mean, that any transfer of matter (e.g. expelling exhaust) must be an exchange or that it must happen at any given time.

So I probably should have been more precise in my statement:
A rocket is not a closed system, because it can exchange mass with the outside environment.
When ignited it does transfer mass by expelling gas.

Because the word EXCHANGE means exactly that!
I give you something in EXCHANGE for something!

You are right, we usually expect an exchange to be "something for something".
I wouldn't be averse to argue that "something for nothing" is a special case of an exchange, but - as explained above - that doesn't really matter for our discussion.

iC

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

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1354
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #458 on: March 26, 2020, 05:35:11 PM »
Rocket Science being Rocket Science, is very complex, it’s tough to wrap your head around some of its principles for a lay person such as myself. However, when digging around one can put some of the pieces of the puzzle together.

Those who contend that rockets can’t work in a vacuum love the Joule Free Expansion law; gas into a vacuum “does no work”. It’s certainly a catchy soundbite if there ever was one. However, Rocket Science, as well as thermo/fluid dynamics, is far more complex than a soundbite.

What we have contended all along is that free expansion and its null Work result is being misapplied to rocket propulsion theory and practice. And it remains so and here’s why.

There are several types/categories of flow/expansion when it comes to the laws of thermo/fluid dynamics. One in particular is referred to as Nonisentropic, as described here in "Liquid Propellant Rockets” By David Altman:



Note how Free Expansion falls within this category where a change in Entropy takes place. Conversely, let’s look at Isentropic:



Rocket engines are considered Isentropic systems where entropy remains unchanged.

Isentropic nozzle flow
"Whenever a gas is forced through a tube, the gaseous molecules are deflected by the tube's walls. If the speed of the gas is much less than the speed of sound, the gas density will remain constant and the velocity of the flow will increase. However, as the speed of the flow approximates the speed of sound, compressibility effects on the gas are to be considered. The density of the gas becomes position dependent. While considering flow through a tube, if the flow is very gradually compressed (i.e. area decreases) and then gradually expanded (i.e. area increases), the flow conditions are restored (i.e. return to its initial position). So, such a process is a reversible process. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whenever there is a reversible and adiabatic flow, constant value of entropy is maintained. Engineers classify this type of flow as an isentropic flow of fluids.

So you see, a Nonisentropic process, like Free Expansion, does not apply to an Isentropic system. Apples and oranges.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #459 on: March 27, 2020, 10:06:18 AM »
Rocket Science being Rocket Science, is very complex, it’s tough to wrap your head around some of its principles for a lay person such as myself. However, when digging around one can put some of the pieces of the puzzle together.

Those who contend that rockets can’t work in a vacuum love the Joule Free Expansion law; gas into a vacuum “does no work”. It’s certainly a catchy soundbite if there ever was one. However, Rocket Science, as well as thermo/fluid dynamics, is far more complex than a soundbite.

What we have contended all along is that free expansion and its null Work result is being misapplied to rocket propulsion theory and practice. And it remains so and here’s why.

There are several types/categories of flow/expansion when it comes to the laws of thermo/fluid dynamics. One in particular is referred to as Nonisentropic, as described here in "Liquid Propellant Rockets” By David Altman:



Note how Free Expansion falls within this category where a change in Entropy takes place. Conversely, let’s look at Isentropic:



Rocket engines are considered Isentropic systems where entropy remains unchanged.

Isentropic nozzle flow
"Whenever a gas is forced through a tube, the gaseous molecules are deflected by the tube's walls. If the speed of the gas is much less than the speed of sound, the gas density will remain constant and the velocity of the flow will increase. However, as the speed of the flow approximates the speed of sound, compressibility effects on the gas are to be considered. The density of the gas becomes position dependent. While considering flow through a tube, if the flow is very gradually compressed (i.e. area decreases) and then gradually expanded (i.e. area increases), the flow conditions are restored (i.e. return to its initial position). So, such a process is a reversible process. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whenever there is a reversible and adiabatic flow, constant value of entropy is maintained. Engineers classify this type of flow as an isentropic flow of fluids.

So you see, a Nonisentropic process, like Free Expansion, does not apply to an Isentropic system. Apples and oranges.
It appears to me you everything exactly backwards.

The change in entropy is determined by the beginning and final states of the system and the system of a rocket is irreversible.

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