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: 25
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Prove that the air is not dense enough to provide resistance. It does to rockets on earth




posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Prove that the air is not dense enough to provide resistance. It does to rockets on earth


You prove there are no satellites in earth’s orbit.

You prove there is no international space station in orbit.

You prove there are no mirrors on the moon used to measure the distance from the earth to the moon by bouncing lasers beams off the mirrors on the moon.

Prove astronauts have not been to and back from the ISS.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Prove that the air is not dense enough to provide resistance. It does to rockets on earth


You prove there are no satellites in earth’s orbit.

You prove there is no international space station in orbit.

You prove there are no mirrors on the moon used to measure the distance from the earth to the moon by bouncing lasers beams off the mirrors on the moon.

Prove astronauts have not been to and back from the ISS.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

You have seemed to missed between this thread and the thread at international skeptics, “Merged: Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space“, the claims in the video in the open post of this thread are fraudulent, full of crap, and totally debunked.

Reading through the post by Gingervytes at
international skeptics “Merged: Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space“, seeing how ridiculous the posts by Gingervytes is in the face of real science only highlights the fact NicSign claims are fraudulent and totally based on pseudoscience.

Again....

a reply to: NicSign

Below is a great thread where an individual with the screen name JayUtah, and others, completely destroyed the arguments by a person posting as Gingervytes. Gingervytes is proven wrong at every turn, is debunked at every turn, Gingervytes Proof was proven wrong, Gingervytes never provides any credible evidence to back their claims, and it was shown Gingervytes had no credibility.



Merged: Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Post by” JayUtah

“Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
The rocket doesn’t push the gas out. The gas moves out due to pressure gradient force. That’s the false ASSUMPTION made.”


No, it is not assumed -- it is observed and measured. The de Laval nozzle dates back to Victorian times, used in steam turbine engines. The pressure "gradient" is converted to velocity, which is expressed in your equation as Ve.

“Quote:
No one here can demonstrate that there is an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.”


I already pointed out that your derivation of the "pressure gradient force" was in error because you wrongly conflated two concepts in the derivation of the rocket equation. You did not address that. Before you claim that no one has refuted you, you must address the posts in which they do just that.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Prove that the air is not dense enough to provide resistance. It does to rockets on earth


What happens if a rocket shooting up through the atmosphere loses thrust, hummmm. Oh, a rocket suddenly losing thrust while still being pulled on by earth’s gravity comes crashing down to earth. That seems a good indication that the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t support the weight of the rocket under any circumstance.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Example of rocket crash after losing thrust



Private Japanese Rocket Crashes to Earth in Fiery Launch Failure

www.space.com...

Its second mission, Momo-2, went out with more of a bang. After lifting off at 5:30 a.m. local time on June 30 (8:30 p.m. GMT on June 29), the uncrewed rocket had barely left the launchpad before it lost its upward thrust and succumbed to gravity, smashing back down onto the launchpad after less than 10 seconds of flight. [Why Do Rockets Explode?]


Pretty clear the atmosphere doesn’t support the weight of a rocket more dense than the atmosphere under any circumstances. Rockets totally rely on the brut force of a reaction going on in their combustion chamber at pressures as great as 2900 psi, the conservation of momentum, and Newton’s third law.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   
If a mass of air behind a rocket has enough resistance to take the thrust of the rocket, the mass of air in front of it must have the same amount of resistance to stop it. The two cancel each other out - a rocket would go nowhere if that was what was involved.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I still fail to see how NicSign's theory even works. When exhaust gas molecules are ejected away from the rocket and collide with air molecules, how do they apply any force towards the rocket?

That is like hitting a cue ball towards a rack of other billiard balls and expecting some type of force to be applied to the cue stick when the balls collide. That just doesn't happen.

However an equal and opposite force is present when force is applied to the cue ball by the cue stick, long before the collisions with other balls.

So, NicSign, how exactly (in your world) does a bunch of gas particles leaving a rocket and colliding with air particles magically apply forward force? Doesn't the gas particles just push the air particles away and scatter them? What force would make the rocket move?


edit on 31-5-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Also, NicSign, they are not Newton's Laws of Motion, they are the Universe's Laws of Motion. Newton just put them down on paper mathematically. The laws existed long before and long after Newton, and have never been broken. With that said...

Imagine we do have a rocket in space in a vacuum, and the rocket is ejecting particles out the back (action). So where is the second law of motion? Where is the equal and opposite force (reaction)? It has to exist somewhere, its the law, so where is it?
edit on 31-5-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Are you going to keep ignoring OneBigMonkeyToo simple and brilliant reply concerning a rocket in a pressure chamber.


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: 8675309jenny


By the time the chamber has any pressure the rocket has already moved. What was it pushing against to move? Your argument, as usual, is false.


And now you have the below to attend to by OneBigMonkeyToo.


OneBigMonkeyToo
If a mass of air behind a rocket has enough resistance to take the thrust of the rocket, the mass of air in front of it must have the same amount of resistance to stop it. The two cancel each other out - a rocket would go nowhere if that was what was involved.


Seems the statements and video of the opening post creates more questions and problems than they solve. While Newton’s universal laws of motion explains and defines by math why rockets do work as proven by real world applications.

edit on 31-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed quote syntax

edit on 31-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

5hp is the power of the propeller and not how much vacuum is generated. Since you could see smoke on both sides of the vac, it obviously wasn’t powerful enough to displace all of the smoke



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Your just misapplying The laws. It would be like saying you must push something in order for it to fall to the ground. Gravity does all the work. Similarly pressure gradient force does all the work.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

5hp is the power of the propeller and not how much vacuum is generated. Since you could see smoke on both sides of the vac, it obviously wasn’t powerful enough to displace all of the smoke


Is been explained to you with you using no logic to create an actual argument.

And you see the smoke come out the vent of the shopvac too.

The rocket thrusted way from the shopvac hose instantly when the motor ignited. The growing distance away from the hose let the rocket exhaust slip around the hose inlet.

The actual thrust impulse of the A8-3 rocket motor is only .5 seconds long. The duration of the smoke trail is not thrust, but only a tracking feature built into the rocket.

You didn’t answer to:
How can a small model rocket engine that only produces a maximum thrust of 10 Newtons overcome a 5 HP shopvac motor with the shopvac robbing the rocket motor of back pressure, and constantly sucking from the 5 gallon surge volume of the shopvac.


Now. Do you have any proof satellites and the International space station deployed by rockets are really in orbit?
edit on 31-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Are you going to keep ignoring OneBigMonkeyToo simple and brilliant reply concerning a rocket in a pressure chamber.


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: 8675309jenny


By the time the chamber has any pressure the rocket has already moved. What was it pushing against to move? Your argument, as usual, is false.


And now you have the below to attend to by OneBigMonkeyToo.


OneBigMonkeyToo
If a mass of air behind a rocket has enough resistance to take the thrust of the rocket, the mass of air in front of it must have the same amount of resistance to stop it. The two cancel each other out - a rocket would go nowhere if that was what was involved.


Seems the statements and video of the opening post creates more questions and problems than they solve. While Newton’s universal laws of motion explains and defines by math why rockets do work as proven by real world applications.

I have noticed you avoid actual science debate, and totally rely on blatant false narratives.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Except the gas is moving at much higher velocity than the rocket. The faster you go, the more drag.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Except the gas is moving at much higher velocity than the rocket. The faster you go, the more drag.


That is rather random and out of context. Like to quote what you are actually referring to?

Didn’t know there was much drag in the vacuum of space? You know. Where your debunked and discredited arguments are based on?



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

this post is not actually relevant to your post - but i use reply to get your attention

my question is the " general physics " of your claims

hear goes :

in a body of water [ where @ surface the liquid density = 1.03 , assuming uniform temperature - the density of water at depth 790m [ 80 atm pressure ] = 1.034

given that this difference = negligable - we can assume that the friction // " drag " on 2 identical size rockets will be identical at both 10m [ 2 atm ] and 790m [ 80 atm ]

the question is - assuming an identical rocket motor in each - and identical chamber peak pressure from each rocket - and a 10 second burn time - which will travel furthest - and why ?



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: NicSign

this post is not actually relevant to your post - but i use reply to get your attention

my question is the " general physics " of your claims

hear goes :

in a body of water [ where @ surface the liquid density = 1.03 , assuming uniform temperature - the density of water at depth 790m [ 80 atm pressure ] = 1.034

given that this difference = negligable - we can assume that the friction // " drag " on 2 identical size rockets will be identical at both 10m [ 2 atm ] and 790m [ 80 atm ]

the question is - assuming an identical rocket motor in each - and identical chamber peak pressure from each rocket - and a 10 second burn time - which will travel furthest - and why ?


A question with a specific answer. It will be ignored.

Or You'll get the old wind question.


If the gas pushes on the wall as it is expanding to low pressure, when the wind blows on the back of your head, the air in front of you would push off your face as it moves away from you. But it doesn’t

edit on 31-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
Your just misapplying The laws.


Sorry, I just noticed I made a mistake in my last post, I meant third law of motion not second.

However, I am not applying any laws. Anytime there is motion Newtons laws of motion can be observed. A rocket expelling gases in a vaccum is an action, so where is the reaction according to you? Where is the third law of motion - for every action there is a reaction?


originally posted by: NicSign
It would be like saying you must push something in order for it to fall to the ground. Gravity does all the work.


Even with gravity there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newtons 3rd law). When an object is falling to Earth, we know there is a force and thus an acceleration acting on the object (action). The opposite force (reaction) is the gravitational force exerted by the object onto the Earth equal in magnitude, and that force causes an acceleration (Newtons 2nd law) in the opposite direction. However because the Earth is so massive that acceleration is very small and can be considered as zero. The sum of both forces gives a net resultant of zero (Newton's Third Law).

So what were you saying?


originally posted by: NicSign
Similarly pressure gradient force does all the work.


No, what does all the work is the molecules of the pressurized substance. They push themselves towards low pressure areas. They do that by pushing off of something including themselves.

But what you say doesn't make any sense according to your theory. Lets again imagine you are correct that the rocket pushes against air. As you should know, in a pressure gradient the force is always in the direction of high pressure area to low pressure area. That is the opposite direction the rocket is travelling! So the bottom of the rocket pushes down against the air molecules, and the air molecules are forced away from the rocket. So where is the force that pushes the rocket up in the opposite direction??

edit on 31-5-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You were talking about a rocket in atmosphere lol remember




top topics



 
12
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join