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: 22
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: chr0naut

Why do you lie? You can even calculate the force
en.m.wikipedia.org...


I did not say that pressure gradient force doesn't exist. I said that rockets don't need to push against something to move. They move by reaction against the ejection of mass. The ejected mass goes one way, the rocket, the other.

Even the linked article explains pressure gradient force in terms of a rocket where it says it can result in acceleration according to Newton's second law (which is about the conservation of momentum). It is saying that the pressure gradient force can produce movement purely through reaction force.

How could i be lying when the article you linked to says exactly the same thing. And also, you can derive the pressure gradient force from the rocket equation.




posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Fun fact. The start of space is 330,000 feet 100,000km above sea level.



en.m.wikipedia.org...ármán_line

The Fédération aéronautique internationale (FAI; English: World Air Sports Federation), an international standard-setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics, defines the Kármán line as the altitude of 100 kilometres (62 miles; 330,000 feet) above Earth's sea level. Other organizations do not use this definition. For instance, the US Air Force and NASA define the limit to be 50 miles (80 kilometres) above sea level for purposes of awarding personnel with outer space badges.


How was the rocket plane, the X-15 able to operate on a rocket engine in space?



North American X-15
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Over thirteen flights, eight pilots flew above 264,000 feet or 50 miles, thereby qualifying as astronauts according to the United States definition of the space border. All five Air Force pilots flew above 50 miles and were awarded military astronaut wings contemporaneously with their achievements, including Adams, who received the distinction posthumously following the flight 191 disaster.[20]

Of the thirteen flights, only two—flights 90 and 91, piloted by Walker—exceeded the Kármán line, the internationally recognized 100 km altitude used by the FAI to denote the edge of space.

edit on 20-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign


There are around 2000 satellites in orbit around earth. How did they get into space?



A NEW GRADING SYSTEM COULD DETER SATELLITE OPERATORS FROM JUNKING UP SPACE

www.n2yo.com...

As aerospace companies vow to fill Earth’s orbit with thousands of new satellites over the next decade, industry experts say it’s time to grade these operators on their efforts to keep space a safe and sustainable place. A rating system could keep companies honest, and ensure that Earth orbit remains open for business and doesn’t become bogged down with excess satellites and debris. Right now, there are nearly 2,000 operational satellites in orbit, according to the European Space Agency, and agencies are tracking more than 22,000 pieces of debris


You don’t believe in satellites placed in orbit around the earth? Track them yourself.



How to Spot and Track Satellites

www.universetoday.com...

The Internet has offered a wealth of information for satellite hunters. Every time I write about “how to spot the ISS,” someone amazes me with yet another new tracker App that I hadn’t heard of. One of my favorites is still Heavens-Above. It’s strange to think that we’ve been visiting this outstanding website daily for a decade and a half now. Heavens-Above specializes in satellites, and will show you a quick listing of passes for brighter satellites once configured with your location.





MEET THE GEEK WHO TRACKS ROGUE SATELLITES WITH COAT HANGERS

www.wired.com...

Inside his home office, on Tuesday, Coletta waits for Zhuhai's signals to appear. He sits in front of a laptop and an iPad, a big shelved monitor hovering above. Coletta has, since 2012, spent his free time eavesdropping on the sky, picking up satellite signals—signals that, for the most part, were never meant for him. He’s listened in with an antenna made of coat-hangers and moulding. He's done it with a rabbit-ear antenna, and with wire taped to yard-sticks. And now, he primarily does it with his quartet of TV antennas—the fanciest setup he's ever had, and still a steal at around $300.

Turning to the iPad, he watches an icon that shows Zhuhai's path across a digital globe. It hops its way in discrete digital steps across a red ellipse that delineates his antenna's field of view. He fiddles with the laptop's settings, adjusting the displayed frequency range and the volume. Soon, a staccato leitmotif comes from the speakers, accompanied by little line segments on the screen—the kinds of data he sonifies, then posts to Twitter and, in earlier days, to his website www.gosatwatch.com, like little space symphonies. This signal looks and sounds like Morse code.

“That’s the beacon,” he explains.

edit on 20-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed who I was replying to

edit on 20-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 22 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Wow, 22 pages of the OP saying Newton's laws of motion are wrong and refusing to provide evidence to support that claim, followed by multiple people presenting solid evidence that the OP is wrong in every sense of the word and then OP just claiming to be right and again refusing to provide evidence for their absurd claims.
edit on 22-5-2019 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on May, 22 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: captainpudding

Never said newton was wrong. Just saying that the laws are misapplied in relation to rockets.



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: captainpudding

Never said newton was wrong. Just saying that the laws are misapplied in relation to rockets.


How is it misapplied?

By looking at a rocket, it is clearly obvious there is a powerful force of pressure inside the combustion chamber, because we can see what happens as that force pushes the burning propellant in the direction through the nozzle.

Newton says that every force in one direction would result an equal force in the opposite direction. Wouldn't that mean that a force equal to the force of the propellant being expelled in the direction of the nozzle be pushing against the inside of the chamber in the opposite direction from the escaping propellant?

How would that be misapplying Newtons' laws? On the contrary, ignoring the force pushing the propellant through the nozzle, and saying that there would be no resultant opposite-direction force, would go against Newton.


edit on 2019/5/23 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

You know the individual’s usually response....


originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Then when wind blows on the back of your head why can’t you feel the air in front of you push off your face as it moves away from you?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Of course, it’s like comparing apples and oranges.

Creating a pressure through a sustained reaction in a confined chamber where the expanding gas pushes on all sides of the chamber boundaries has to pressure its way out a single restricted opening is not the same as freely moving air in an wide open space flowing around a ball.
edit on 23-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added

edit on 23-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added more.



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

but gas is pushing on the face and in all directions. but when low pressure area exists, the gas pushes unevenly according to you and an overall net force on the face. But this does not happen



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Again. The controlled explosion of a rocket motor pressuring out of a restrictive opening is not the same as wind blowing around your head in a wide open space.



but gas is pushing on the face and in all directions.


If your talking about the wind blowing from the back of your head to the front of your face, no. The wind blows around your head and makes minor vortexes at your face.



BUILDING SHAPES TO MITIGATE WIND LOADS

www.dci-engineers.com...

This is generated because of disturbances in wind called vortices, or mini tornados. The air flows uniformly. But as soon as it hits the straw, it will try to deflect from its original path. This deflection causes an interaction of various wind layers, which in turn generates the vortices.



You


but when low pressure area exists, the gas pushes unevenly


Quote where I ever said such a thing.
Me:
Creating a pressure through a sustained reaction in a confined chamber where the expanding gas pushes on all sides of the chamber boundaries has to pressure its way out a single restricted opening is not the same as freely moving air in an wide open space flowing around a ball.

Again. The sustain controlled explosion in the confined space of a rocket motor creating recoil with gas pressuring out a restrictive opening is not the same as wind blowing around your head in a wide open space resulting in vortexes from being redirected by your head.

This other example has presented to you already.

Or think about it this way.

A water boiler operating has its outlets shut. The relief valve lifts, but is undersized. Even though the relief valve is passing steam/water, the boiler ruptured because of the undersized relief valve in this scenario. The exploding boiler will hurl debris some distance.

The above is not the same thing as water flowing around a pole in a stream open to the atmosphere.
edit on 23-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

edit on 23-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 23 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Are you saying if a tank exploded in the vacuum of space it will not hurl shrapnel at speed in all directions.

What are you saying? Wind blowing around your head in an atmosphere is the same as a rocket working in space. That’s just ignorant.
edit on 23-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

it's the same principle. High pressure gas moving to low pressure.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

it's the same principle. High pressure gas moving to low pressure.


Not the same conditions and equipment.

A controlled explosion in a confined space passing through a restrictive opening vs air passing around a ball in wide open space? There is a huge difference between high pressure pressuring through a restriction into a static vacuum with no fluid movement vs wind passing around a ball in a wide open space filed with a fluid and fluid movement.
edit on 24-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 24-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Again,

Are you saying if a pressure tank exploded in the vacuum of space it will not hurl shrapnel at speed in all directions.

What are you saying? Wind blowing around your head in an atmosphere is the same as a rocket working in space. That’s just ignorant.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Besides we know rockers work in space because of:
Satellite TV
Satellite internet
GPS Satellites
Satellite phones
Satellite weather tracking and surveys
Satellite mapping of earth by radar, thermal imaging, UV light.....
Mirrors left on moon used to measure distance
Hubble space telescopes
Various countries space missions to map the moon
The international space station
Skylab space station
The Mir space station
You can actually see satellites and the international space station from earth
Missions to map and explore Mars
Missions to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, asteroids, comets...........
edit on 25-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added GPS

edit on 25-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added space stations



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

So when I use a vacuum to create airflow through a pipe with only one end closed and with a small hole on the side, there is no opposite force



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

So when I use a vacuum to create airflow through a pipe with only one end closed and with a small hole on the side, there is no opposite force


The low pressure area is at the blades of the fan of the vacuum. Is that false. The air rushing into the fan is creating a “wind” that travels to the low pressure are created in the fan of the vacuum. Is that false. The atmosphere is rushing into the hose to the low pressure area in the fan of the vacuum. Your basically creating a wind.

Your not robbing the ballon of something to push against. There is still air at the base of the ballon rushing into the vacuum, is that false.

In reality, you have used a vacuum to create an in rush of air that is acting more of a head wind that the ballon cannot overcome to travel forward.

The in rush of air is not the same thing as the total and static vacuum of space.



science.howstuffworks.com...

If nature abhors a vacuum, then why doesn't the vacuum of space suck away all of the Earth's atmosphere?

The reason the vacuum of space does not attract the molecules is because there is no suction to the vacuum of space -- there is no air pressure forcing things into the vacuum. All there is in space is molecules traveling through the vacuum.
[/quote
edit on 25-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Then do your experiment of the ballon in a large enclosed vacuum chamber that statically the volume of the ballon would not add to the atmosphere of the chamber.


You could actually use a water rocket that would hold its shape and might not explode? Are you saying if a pressurized plastic water rocket would explode in a vacuum chamber due to differential pressure, the explosion would not hurl plastic shrapnel everywhere?



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

there were two trials. One with the vacuum near the opening and one away from the opening but still behind the car. Wind would have been generated in both scenarios but you got different results. ]

Where is you proof of an equal and opposite reaction from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

a rocket doesn't blow off solid chunks of itself to move



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   
It's just hard for me to fathom that people actually believe, after all these...centuries...that Newton was just a goof!

Just unreal to me.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join