It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 23
12
share:

posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:16 PM

originally posted by: NicSign

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

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?

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

Really. What is the difference of an explosion throwing out mass from shrapnel vs the mass thrown out by the controlled explosion in a rocket motor? It’s still mass ejected over time. Or a rate of mass being ejected. Are you saying the reaction of a rocket motor is not ejecting mass? How is the ejection of mass from a rocket motor not an example of Newton’s Third law?

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.

What are your ranting about. No time in your atmospheric tests is there a void of nothing. There is always a presence of air molecules. So the air from the ballon is always venting into a stream of air molecules. The ballon is always venting into a medium. The experiments create air flow that is noting like the static presence of nothingness that is the void of space. The experiments are invalid, a result of air movement, and pseudoscience.

That brings us back to the first part of this post.

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?

But in your repeated posts that you have willing used false arguments, you killed your credibility. Nothing you post has any meaning at this time.
edit on 25-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 03:16 PM

Solids do not follow fluid dynamics so there is a difference.

To bad that after all that you still can prove an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force lol

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 03:56 PM

originally posted by: NicSign

Solids do not follow fluid dynamics so there is a difference.

To bad that after all that you still can prove an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force lol

It’s still the ejection of mass.

You didn’t answer the question to the below.

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?

The ability for a rocket to work in the vacuum of space is proven with every satellite deployment, every time people are brought to the international space station, leave the international space station, and missions to different moons, planets, asteroids, and comets.

You are just right arguing a false narrative.

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 07:14 PM

water hose pushes off the air.

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 08:48 PM

originally posted by: NicSign

water hose pushes off the air.

Pseudoscience.

It’s documented repeatedly every time people are brought to and leave the International space station rockets work in space. Every time a satellite is deployed by rocket in space, it’s documented rockets work in space.

The visible international space station in the night sky I see with my own eyes, satellite TV I watch, weather satellites, satellite internet I use, vs a junk science YouTube video.
edit on 26-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 08:51 PM

Prove that there are actually satellites. Let me guess your gonna day you can see them with the naked eye lol. If people could spot them you would have millions of spotting a on YouTube. Instead you have a few that are very ambiguous

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 09:29 PM

So its blimps? Kek.

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 09:39 PM

originally posted by: NicSign

Prove that there are actually satellites. Let me guess your gonna day you can see them with the naked eye lol. If people could spot them you would have millions of spotting a on YouTube. Instead you have a few that are very ambiguous

Another false argument by you out of context. You left on the party you can track satellite signals, they are often tracked by ground control teams, satellites are often used as message relay stations, and second by second provide verifiable services.

Again..
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...........

There is nothing ambiguous about satellites being utilized every second of every day. You have not provided any proof to show otherwise.

You realize this thread is determined to qualify for ludicrous online lies by a conspiracy site. In short, it’s in a conspiracy site trash bin because it blatant contradicts reality. It’s well documented and proven rockets work in the vacuum of space.

Because you are disconnected from reality, ignore the bulk of scientific research, and ignore the real word application of rockets doesn’t qualify this thread as credible in anyway.

edit on 26-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on May, 26 2019 @ 10:19 PM

Just more proof of rockets working in space.

How to See SpaceX's Starlink Satellite 'Train' in the Night Sky

www.space.com...

SpaceX's new array of Starlink communication satellites has even the most jaded of satellite observers agog with excitement as they move across the sky.

On Thursday evening (May 23), SpaceX launched 60 Starlink satellites into orbit on a Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The satellites are in good health and are the first of a planned 12,000-satellite megaconstellation to provide internet access to people on Earth.

The satellites, which are now orbiting at approximately 273 miles (440 km) above the Earth, are putting on a spectacular show for ground observers as they move across the night sky.

Close encounters? SpaceX satellites spark Dutch UFO frenzy

m.phys.org...

A Dutch website set up to record UFO sightings was flooded early Saturday with reports after a "train of stars" was spotted crossing the Netherlands' skies, sparking fears of an alien invasion.

But what some thought to be a close encounter of the third kind turned out to be a string of some 60 satellites launched by US-based SpaceX hours earlier as part of its "Starlink" constellation.

The row of satellites which are part of a plan by billionaire Elon Musk's firm to provide internet from space, glided across Dutch skies around 1:00 am (2300 GMT).

edit on 26-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Removed extra reply

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:58 AM

So instead of using science you are using the method of a magician or an illusionist. You distract from the matter and show the pretending of space equipment.

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 09:41 AM

originally posted by: NicSign

So instead of using science you are using the method of a magician or an illusionist. You distract from the matter and show the pretending of space equipment.

No. I have cited scientific principles, provided numerous examples of real world applications of rockets used in space while you use pseudoscience, junk science, and ignore reality.

Again...

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...........

There is nothing ambiguous about satellites being utilized every second of every day. You have not provided any proof to show otherwise.

You realize this thread is determined to qualify for ludicrous online lies by a conspiracy site. In short, it’s in a conspiracy site trash bin because it blatant contradicts reality. It’s well documented and proven rockets work in the vacuum of space.

Because you are disconnected from reality, ignore the bulk of scientific research, and ignore the real word application of rockets doesn’t qualify this thread as credible in anyway.

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 01:43 PM

And yet the only way you can prove their existence is through hearsay. If they really did exist, there would be actual footage and practical information about them

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 03:06 PM

I'm not sure how much more disingenuous you can be. The evidence you have been given is not hearsay. It is verifiable evidence. You obviously have no clue what the word 'hearsay' means.

If I was to say to you "there is a space station", that is hearsay. When I show you actual evidence of its existence it stops being hearsay and starts being something you can't deal with because you have no answer to it. I saw the space station 3 times just this weekend, along with several thousand other people at the same event, exactly where and when it was supposed to be there, at exactly the same time that it appears every year. Prove I didn't.

You have been given videos and photographic evidence of the ISS's existence, together with the existence of numerous other satellites. You have yet to say why these are not genuine (pro tip: just blathering on about CGI isn't working for you). I'm watching satellite TV right now, that's evidence of the existence of a satellite. Prove it isn't.

So far, all your evidence is hearsay - you have no given proof of anything other than "because I say so".

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 03:37 PM

Satellite tv could just be radio waves. You haven’t provided any unedited footage

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 03:42 PM

originally posted by: NicSign

Satellite tv could just be radio waves. You haven’t provided any unedited footage

Then triangulate the transmission tower and give its location, explain why the dish has to be aimed at a specific location in the sky not in line with any possible transmission tower, and explain the broad coverage area.

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 03:44 PM

originally posted by: NicSign

And yet the only way you can prove their existence is through hearsay. If they really did exist, there would be actual footage and practical information about them

Then quote my “hearsay”. People actually tracking, spotting, photographing, tuning into satellites, and utilization satellites is hearsay?

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 05:56 PM

Where are all those people. I’m sure out of 7 billion people there would be at least a few million that do so. But there are only a select few

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 05:56 PM

Where are all those people. I’m sure out of 7 billion people there would be at least a few million that do so. But there are only a select few

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:34 PM

Satellites providing internet is a thing. There is no reasonable doubt.

www.pcmag.com...

Why Satellite Internet Is the New Space Race

Big names are involved—from Richard Branson to Elon Musk—along with big money. Branson's OneWeb has raised \$1.7 billion so far, and SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell estimated a \$10 billion price tag for that company's project.

There are big challenges, of course, and a history not exactly favorable to these efforts. Good guys are trying to bridge the digital divide in underserved regions even as bad actors slip illegal satellites onto rocket rideshares. And it's all happening as (or really, because) demand for data has skyrocketed: In 2016, global internet traffic exceeded 1 sextillion bytes, according to Cisco, kicking off the zettabyte era.

For rural areas, satellite internet is the only option. If satellite internet is not real, then how are rural satellite internet subscribers getting internet services when there are no other options.

Canada on Path to Provide High Speed Internet to All

www.satellitetoday.com...

Currently, according to the “2014 CRTC Satellite Inquiry Report,” about 90 communities in rural areas of the country rely on satellite for telecommunications services provided through two models: Direct-to-Home (DTH), and the community aggregator model, which uses a local access distribution network that connects end users to an earth station using satellite transport that can support both voice and data services. This amounts to more than 18,000 households that rely on satellite services throughout the country.

And this is just for satellite service.

Cable and satellite TV sinks again as online streaming soars

arstechnica.com...

Satellite TV services were hit especially hard. AT&T-owned DirecTV lost 1.24 million subscribers and finished 2018 with 19.2 million subscribers. Meanwhile, Dish lost 1.13 million subscribers and ended 2018 with 9.9 million. The combined DirecTV and Dish losses of 2.36 million customers in 2018 was up from the companies' combined loss of 1.55 million in 2017.

Literally, the whole word uses satellite technology. Literally, millions alone in the USA use satellite TV.

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:36 PM

Again.....

You

Satellite tv could just be radio waves. You haven’t provided any unedited footage

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: NicSign

Satellite tv could just be radio waves. You haven’t provided any unedited footage

Then triangulate the transmission tower and give its location, explain why the dish has to be aimed at a specific location in the sky not in line with any possible transmission tower, and explain the broad coverage area.

What proof do you have satellite TV is not broadcasted from satellites in space.
edit on 27-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

new topics

top topics

12