*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1891
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #460 on: March 27, 2020, 11:03:37 AM »
A rocket cannot maintain a constant value of entropy.

Why not?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #461 on: April 03, 2020, 12:20:53 AM »
Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #462 on: April 06, 2020, 04:52:55 PM »
Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.
Looking at the - at times - quite vigorous claims, that Joule's law of free expansion would apply to rockets in a vacuum, I'm a bit surprised, that the discussion would end so abruptly.
However, it does seem to be settled - thanks to everyone who made it an interesting discussion.

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 #463 on: April 06, 2020, 05:54:24 PM »
Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.
Written as if rockets do not expel gas into a vacuum...

Which is what I have been writing all along...
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #464 on: April 06, 2020, 08:00:09 PM »
Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.
Written as if rockets do not expel gas into a vacuum...

Which is what I have been writing all along...

Not sure where you got that from. But the fact of the matter is, your beloved "does no work" law does not apply. Thus your central argument has been nullified. Do you have another argument you would like to try?

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #465 on: April 11, 2020, 07:18:51 PM »
Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.
Written as if rockets do not expel gas into a vacuum...

Which is what I have been writing all along...

Not sure where you got that from. But the fact of the matter is, your beloved "does no work" law does not apply. Thus your central argument has been nullified. Do you have another argument you would like to try?
My central argument is that gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum.

This has certainly not been nullified and in fact has been proven by all the videos presented here.

But, by all means, post another video showing different and I will look at it.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #466 on: April 11, 2020, 08:48:59 PM »
Considering that the main argument, this Joule's law of free expansion, is not applicable to rockets in a vacuum it appears that rockets do work in a vacuum. I guess that settles that.
Written as if rockets do not expel gas into a vacuum...

Which is what I have been writing all along...

Not sure where you got that from. But the fact of the matter is, your beloved "does no work" law does not apply. Thus your central argument has been nullified. Do you have another argument you would like to try?
My central argument is that gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum.

This has certainly not been nullified and in fact has been proven by all the videos presented here.

But, by all means, post another video showing different and I will look at it.

Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.

As for the experiments shown, you don't like the manner by which they were executed, tapping the gauge, not enough of a vacuum, for example, and that's fine. But that does not take away from the fact that you have misapplied free expansion to rockets in a vacuum, so that argument is moot.

There are facilities here in the States, chief among them Glenn Research Center's In-Space Propulsion division as well as some private firms, that test rockets in high altitude near vacuum conditions. If you would like to be directed to their literature/research, let me know. 

Your only argument is that it is your opinion that rockets don't work in a vacuum which is not supported by laws, just your opinion. Maybe you can find something in the literature that supports your opinion. Thus far there is nothing. Science does not support your opinion.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #467 on: April 11, 2020, 08:51:38 PM »
My central argument is that gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum.
This has certainly not been nullified ...

From what I've read in this discussion, your central argument has been convincingly challenged in several ways by various people.
So far, you have not plausibly refuted those challenges.

The most recent one was stack providing the reference, why Free Expansion is different from rockets operating in a vacuum.
My reasoning is based on the same scientific principles, although I didn't explicitly mention isentropic and nonisentropic.
Ignoring, where your central argument is in conflict with accepted science and simply repeating it does make it valid.

So it is still your turn to prove, why anyone should agree with your central argument despite the valid (open and unrebutted) arguments against it.

iC

BTW: I see you're still quoting me in your signature, despite my objection that you are using those quotes wrongly and out of context.
         Every time I read it, it makes me smile :). Says more about you than it says about me.

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

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #468 on: April 22, 2020, 10:33:56 PM »
We've had about 20 pages of lies about rocket BS, having nothing to do with the OP thread. Oh NASA and its minions lie too !!! Have some Covid-19, breathe deep. I'll bring you back on topic just as soon as you digest some truth...K



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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #469 on: April 23, 2020, 10:45:48 AM »
Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.
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.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

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

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #470 on: April 23, 2020, 11:36:10 AM »
Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.
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.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf

“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #471 on: April 23, 2020, 11:43:49 AM »
Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.
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.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf
Yeah, the fact is if you know what the difference is between isentropic and nonisentropic tells you all you need to know.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #472 on: April 23, 2020, 11:51:02 AM »
Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.
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.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf
Yeah, the fact is if you know what the difference is between isentropic and nonisentropic tells you all you need to know.

Uhhh, so you say you know this difference, and that is all you need to know to make your claim true?

Lol, yeah I don’t believe you at all, that sounds like BS. You want me to ignore what appears to be the consensus on that his issue, and accept your alternative without any evidence?

I’m gonna pass. It really doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here. Since I don’t know about isentropy, I’m going to believe what scientists say is true over what you claim is true. They have evidence, but it doesn’t look like you have any.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #473 on: April 23, 2020, 12:08:13 PM »
Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.
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.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf
Yeah, the fact is if you know what the difference is between isentropic and nonisentropic tells you all you need to know.

Uhhh, so you say you know this difference, and that is all you need to know to make your claim true?

Lol, yeah I don’t believe you at all, that sounds like BS. You want me to ignore what appears to be the consensus on that his issue, and accept your alternative without any evidence?

I’m gonna pass. It really doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here. Since I don’t know about isentropy, I’m going to believe what scientists say is true over what you claim is true. They have evidence, but it doesn’t look like you have any.
Have a great day with your beliefs.

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

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #474 on: April 23, 2020, 12:23:54 PM »
Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.
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.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf
Yeah, the fact is if you know what the difference is between isentropic and nonisentropic tells you all you need to know.

Uhhh, so you say you know this difference, and that is all you need to know to make your claim true?

Lol, yeah I don’t believe you at all, that sounds like BS. You want me to ignore what appears to be the consensus on that his issue, and accept your alternative without any evidence?

I’m gonna pass. It really doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here. Since I don’t know about isentropy, I’m going to believe what scientists say is true over what you claim is true. They have evidence, but it doesn’t look like you have any.
Have a great day with your beliefs.

Read up on entropy.

Okay will do!

I’ll probably start with those same articles. They seem to know about it.

Unless you have some other sources about entropy that might help me learn about it in the way you do?
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #475 on: April 23, 2020, 12:56:03 PM »
Okay will do!

I’ll probably start with those same articles. They seem to know about it.

Unless you have some other sources about entropy that might help me learn about it in the way you do?
Simply put, entropy is a quantity representing the availability of the thermal energy in a system to be converted into work.

A rocket cannot possibly maintain constant entropy.

As stack writes falsely:
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 is obviously written by someone trying to engage in double speak...

And stack, while he talks of the rocket engine, does NOT want you to look behind the curtain containing the rocket exhaust, which is where the meat and potatoes is at.

A rocket has a fixed amount of fuel and a fixed amount of potential energy.

Rockets have a fixed rate of discharge at any particular point of time.

Sooner or later, there is no more more potential energy available.

Therefore, rockets cannot maintain unchanged entropy when in operation.

And that process is not "reversible," nor can it possibly be "adiabatic," as described in stacks' ridiculous post, once initiated. Rockets experience no reverse flow of fluids or exhaust. The exhaust is supposedly taking place in the vacuum of outer space...again, where all the fakers want you to believe that gas, just because it is coming from a rocket, can somehow, someway...be different...but it, of course...cannot.

Gas released into a vacuum...does no work.



« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 01:16:35 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 junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #476 on: April 23, 2020, 02:49:01 PM »
We've had about 20 pages of lies about rocket BS, having nothing to do with the OP thread. Oh NASA and its minions lie too !!! Have some Covid-19, breathe deep. I'll bring you back on topic just as soon as you digest some truth...K

How about just staying on topic now and not posting unrelated videos?

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #477 on: April 23, 2020, 03:17:49 PM »
Okay will do!

I’ll probably start with those same articles. They seem to know about it.

Unless you have some other sources about entropy that might help me learn about it in the way you do?
Simply put, entropy is a quantity representing the availability of the thermal energy in a system to be converted into work.

A rocket cannot possibly maintain constant entropy.

As stack writes falsely:
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 is obviously written by someone trying to engage in double speak...

And stack, while he talks of the rocket engine, does NOT want you to look behind the curtain containing the rocket exhaust, which is where the meat and potatoes is at.

A rocket has a fixed amount of fuel and a fixed amount of potential energy.

Rockets have a fixed rate of discharge at any particular point of time.

Sooner or later, there is no more more potential energy available.

Therefore, rockets cannot maintain unchanged entropy when in operation.

And that process is not "reversible," nor can it possibly be "adiabatic," as described in stacks' ridiculous post, once initiated. Rockets experience no reverse flow of fluids or exhaust. The exhaust is supposedly taking place in the vacuum of outer space...again, where all the fakers want you to believe that gas, just because it is coming from a rocket, can somehow, someway...be different...but it, of course...cannot.

Gas released into a vacuum...does no work.

Okay, so then why do the sources that I gave all say that it is isentropic? Are they all wrong?
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #478 on: April 23, 2020, 03:22:52 PM »
Okay, so then why do the sources that I gave all say that it is isentropic? Are they all wrong?
A rocket engine, yes...

Rocket exhaust cannot be isentropic because of the physical conditions.

How do you reverse the exhaust of a rocket?
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #479 on: April 23, 2020, 07:39:41 PM »
Okay, so then why do the sources that I gave all say that it is isentropic? Are they all wrong?
A rocket engine, yes...

Rocket exhaust cannot be isentropic because of the physical conditions.

How do you reverse the exhaust of a rocket?

Well why don’t you look that up? I think it’s much more likely that you just don’t understand the science rather than the scientists being wrong about a science process. Lol. That’s what folks do: when something doesn’t make sense to them they look it up.

Instead, you’re approach seems to be that since you don’t understand it then the science is wrong.

I mean, if I had to bet on it, I’d put all the money on you just not knowing what you’re talking about.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey