It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

page: 19
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2019 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

When are you going to prove that the extinguisher is pushing off air? Stand in front if a shotgun and fire it. The air will stop the pellets for you.




posted on May, 16 2019 @ 02:48 AM
link   
40K rockets launched into space
4.5k satellites; no doubt some, many, or even most also equipped with cameras.

Yet, not a single video of a craft in space achieving trajectory following burn initiation in the alleged total vacuum of 'space' says it all.

Can't help but notice whenever proof is asked, tends to get derailed toward principles of science like combustion in space - and away from the reality that gases from combustion sucked into a vacuum aren't a force - LOL



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Artesia

apollo 15 lift off



thats the best documented event



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

further - the MMU [ MANNED MANOUVERING UNIT ]




edit on 16-5-2019 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   
There have been many here who have asked Nic , can i call him Nic . Why not . Anyhow he has been asked many times what shape he thinks the earth is .



Screenshot from the end of his video . And do know what , i think its flat because pressure gradient force . Burnt dinner , yep pressure gradient force . Got a headache , yes you guessed it . Yet somehow i am drawn to this thread much like a mosquito is drawn to the bug zapper , and we all know how that ends .



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

no solids are not fluids. How do you know the exhaust of the fire extinguisher is not pushing off the atmosphere?


I asked how the action of the fire extinguisher was any different than throwing a medicine ball from an office chair.

Do you think a water jet backpack works because it pushes off the atmosphere. No, it works with raw power with the water exiting the pack to push the pack in the opposite direction.

And you ignored:
Think about this way. A shotgun shooting a blank cartridge will still kick. Is that a false statement. How is a shotgun that kicks any different than a very short duration rocket?

You think a shotgun kicks because It pushes against the atmosphere? The shotgun kicks because of the rapid release of gasses and Newton’s third law. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere, and you can solve by using Newton’s third law without terms of pressure.

High school physics 2, NicSign big fat zero.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Assuming the gun powder has no casing, a blank gunshot will not give you kick back in space.

Tell me this, can you move gas from one room to another the same way you can with a medicine ball?



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Assuming the gun powder has no casing, a blank gunshot will not give you kick back in space.

Tell me this, can you move gas from one room to another the same way you can with a medicine ball?


Why would the shotgun not give you a kick in space. Please show using Newton’s third law. You realize a shotgun blast is so short of a duration that the exit gas punches through the air and the surrounding air gives essential no resistance.

And the question was:
I asked how the action of the fire extinguisher was any different than throwing a medicine ball from an office chair.

High school physics 3, NicSign big fat zero
edit on 16-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Address essential



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

How did you prove that the extinguisher is not pushing off the air? How can you move gas from one room to another like you can with a medicine ball?



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

How did you prove that the extinguisher is not pushing off the air? How can you move gas from one room to another like you can with a medicine ball?


Why would it be any different than throwing the medicine ball. What does that have to do with Newton’s third laws.

Why would the shotgun not give you a kick in space. Please show using Newton’s third law. You realize a shotgun blast is so short of a duration that the exit gas punches through the air and the surrounding air gives essential no resistance.

And the question was:
I asked how the action of the fire extinguisher was any different than throwing a medicine ball from an office chair.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Another way of looking how a rocket works is space.



If space is a vacuum, then how do space capsule's retrorockets steer?

www.physlink.com...

It is not necessary for the rocket exhaust to push against anything EXCEPT THE SHIP ITSELF. You see, when the combustion of fuel takes place inside the rocket (think of a long vertical cylinder with the 'bottom' open) the exhaust gasses produced expand quickly in all directions. The molecules slam into anything in their path exerting a small force each. Thus some molecules push against the 'right' side and some push against the 'left' side, and all these sideways forces cancel each other out. Some molecules slam against the 'top' of the cylinder, but since there is no bottom of the cylinder, there is no force to cancel this out! Therefore the net force will be in the 'up' direction.

Another way to think about the situation is as a conservation of momentum problem. Any isolated system will conserve total momentum. Thus if you imagine a stationary ship, plus the fuel and oxygen molecules on the ship, p=0. If a few trillion atoms of exhaust are shot in one direction into the vacuum of space, the rest of the ship must move in the OPPOSITE direction with the same momentum (mass x velocity)


If you don’t think the quoted source is right, then show using Newton’s third law why it’s wrong.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Rocket burns in vacuum

I have always believed in challenging the 'approved norms' but in this case, surely... you know... there is a whole multitude of footage and proof (such a dirty word these days eh?) that rockets do fire in space... Shuttle main engines (they are still burning until ET drop)... Shuttle RCS thrusters... Saturn V 2nd and 3rd stages... Apollo CM engine... the LM engine... Apollo 13 LM engine (fired in space just to point them back towards re-entry corridor).. the list is endless... almost 40k examples I would say... none of this I must point out, was taught to me by any "teachers with an agenda"... just my own curiousity... I will leave the raw science and maths to the more learned of ATS as more than a dozen examples have already been cited...

Have to give it up to you though, troll attempt or not, this is entertaining



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Think about it this way. The gas exiting from the rocket is basically a controlled explosion. If the reacting gassed were not in a nozzle, the exit gasses would want to expand in all directions. Is that false. In a rocket, the gas release is forced out in one direction. Is that false. So the gas is required to push against the combustion chamber. Is that false. The expanding gasses by contact and collisions is forced out the nozzle opening. Is that false. So by Newton’s third law, the expanding gasses forced out of the nozzle by contact will result in thrust for the rocket. Is this false. Using Newton’s third law to move the rocket has nothing to to with the atmosphere. Is that false.



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It won’t stop it. It will slow it down slightly. It’s called drag.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Ah right, so the air isn't a barrier to thrust then. It merely gets in the way of the thrust and slows things down. And if there is no air?



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

NicSign,

After reviewing your replies to my questions and others, it seems you don't have a solid understanding of the forces involved.


originally posted by: NicSign
Initially there is pressure in the sphere.


Initially there is pressure in the sphere, we agree here, but you don't seem to realize what that pressure is. The atoms and molecules of the gas are moving around rapidly in all directions repelling and bouncing off each other, and also repelling and bouncing off the inside of the container as well. The gas collisions with the container is the force we are calling a "pressure".

Those collisions are the reason a balloon or car tire would expand when filled with air. The particles of air are colliding with the walls of the balloon or tire and pushing/moving them outward with force. That is the key here, the atoms are pushing on the container.


originally posted by: NicSign
When you puncture a hole. The volume increases and the pressure inside the sphere decrease. Since pressure decrease, the force applied on the walls decrease.


That is a somewhat odd way to look at it but not entirely inaccurate. When you puncture a hole in the bottom of the container, the atoms and molecules of the gas nearest to the hole no longer collide with the container, and instead they collide with each other until their trajectory is towards and out of the hole to escape. Since some of the gas is no longer colliding with the container, and there are less collisions happening inside the container, that is what we are calling a decrease in pressure.

However, it is not an instant loss of pressure, it is a gradual decrease of pressure. Other atoms and molecules are still colliding with the container causing pressure. Since more atoms are colliding with the top of the container than they are the bottom of the container due to the hole, the container has a net upward force. It would move in an upward direction.


originally posted by: NicSign
So there is no overall movement unless the escaping gas meets resistance like an atmosphere


That is simply not true. You are trying to suggest the gas atoms and molecules inside the container would just instantly stop colliding and pushing on walls of the container when a hole is introduced. That is like saying a balloon or car tire would instantly deflate if they sprung a small leak which is wrong.

You are also suggesting that the atoms of the escaping gas would collide with the atoms of the atmosphere, and that would somehow cause the container to move. Why exactly do you think the atoms that just escaped the container and collided with the atoms of the outside atmosphere would apply a force to the container to move it?

Sure, some atoms escaping the container may hit atoms in the atmosphere and bounce back towards the hole of escaping atoms and collide with the escaping atoms which may then collide with atoms already inside the container and then collide with the walls of the container to apply some force. However the escaping atoms wouldn't be applying much back force to move anything. The force would be millions of times weaker than the force already being applied to the container from within.

I think you have a lack of understanding of the interactions between the atoms and molecules in all this. Start with asking why the gas even leaves the container to being with. - The answer is because the gas collided with the container in every which way (pushing the container) until it found a trajectory that doesn't collide with the container. The gas either moves into nothing (vacuum of space) or it moves into something with considerably less resistance than the container walls (something with lower pressure).
edit on 17-5-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

High school physics 4, NicSign big fat zero



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Then why can’t you prove it using simple experiment? How come simple experiment disproves what you say?



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Newtonian physics and its application to rocketry has been proven experimentally and practically many times over. Simply saying they haven't does not prove otherwise. You, on the other hand, have proven precisely nothing other than your profound inability to grasp simple concepts and discuss them rationally.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

High school physics 5, NicSign big fat zero




top topics



 
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join