International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Merged: Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space. (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335934)

Gingervytes 17th April 2019 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah (Post 12667424)
And, if you want to get picky, some rocket propellant formulations can produce solid species in the exhaust, which are entrained and become part of the exhaust flow.



That's where I was going. The dynamics of the ambient fluid completely overwhelm the problem. I was more laughing at his notion that the propulsive force would act to elevate the campfire, not push it downwards. That illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of motion, irrespective of our new attempts to reckon it in a macroscale fluid flow.

Nope. I am pointing out that that is what you are saying when you say rockets push the exhaust out

JayUtah 17th April 2019 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667435)
Nope. I am pointing out that that is what you are saying when you say rockets push the exhaust out

No, that is not what I've been saying. The "exhaust" and the "rocket" don't move in the same direction. They move in opposite directions -- the exhaust one way and the rocket another. If you are trying to use the campfire as an analogy, the smoke rising and the campfire also rising is not analogous. That is self-evidently incorrect.

dasmiller 17th April 2019 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah (Post 12667424)
And, if you want to get picky, some rocket propellant formulations can produce solid species in the exhaust, which are entrained and become part of the exhaust flow.

Or liquids. I remember struggling with divergent estimates over just how much molten aluminum would go out the nozzle of a Star-48 (or was it a Star-63?) rather than pooling around the nozzle (the nozzle protruded into the combustion chamber a bit, so this was possible).

Dancing David 17th April 2019 10:56 AM

Thank you to Jay and all the others!

Gingervytes 17th April 2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah (Post 12667436)
No, that is not what I've been saying. The "exhaust" and the "rocket" don't move in the same direction. They move in opposite directions -- the exhaust one way and the rocket another. If you are trying to use the campfire as an analogy, the smoke rising and the campfire also rising is not analogous. That is self-evidently incorrect.

What about when the sun heats air, why does it rise up. Not talking about campfire

Gingervytes 17th April 2019 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmiller (Post 12667437)
Or liquids. I remember struggling with divergent estimates over just how much molten aluminum would go out the nozzle of a Star-48 (or was it a Star-63?) rather than pooling around the nozzle (the nozzle protruded into the combustion chamber a bit, so this was possible).

So you ar saying the pressure is pushing off solid chunks? What causes the solid chunks to form? Some secret technology?

JayUtah 17th April 2019 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667443)
What about when the sun heats air, why does it rise up.

Convection, but let's not wander so far afield. Do you agree that neither convection nor campfire smoke is analogous to rocketry, despite your suggestion?

Gingervytes 17th April 2019 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmiller (Post 12667325)
I think many of us understand that just fine. Can you elaborate on the significance for rocket propulsion?

Too ignorant to even try understanding the argument

sts60 17th April 2019 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667444)
So you ar saying the pressure is pushing off solid chunks? What causes the solid chunks to form? Some secret technology?

Are you serious? Really. I’m starting to think you’re just trolling.

JayUtah 17th April 2019 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667444)
So you ar saying the pressure is pushing off solid chunks?

No, that solid chunks and liquid droplets are part of the exhaust flow in most practical rockets. The exhaust consists of matter in all phases. If it's all part of the flow, nothing is "pushing off" anything in the way you suggest.

Quote:

What causes the solid chunks to form? Some secret technology?
No, ordinary chemistry.

dasmiller 17th April 2019 11:05 AM

deleted

JayUtah 17th April 2019 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667449)
Too ignorant to even try understanding the argument

Or perhaps smart enough to know that your Gish gallop includes quite a lot of things that have nothing to do with rocketry. I agree with sts60 -- at this point your primary task is to convince us that you're not just a troll.

sts60 17th April 2019 11:13 AM

One way to convince me, at least, would be for Gingervytes to stop the attempted Gish gallop and answer the specific questions and refutations already put to him. I’m not going to entertain any new topics until he does.

bknight 17th April 2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12667467)
One way to convince me, at least, would be for Gingervytes to stop the attempted Gish gallop and answer the specific questions and refutations already put to him. I’m not going to entertain any new topics until he does.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667257)
The rocket doesn’t push the gas out. The gas moves out due to pressure gradient force. That’s the false ASSUMPTION made. No one here can demonstrate that there is an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.

How do you account for rockets actually moving in vaccuum?

sts60 17th April 2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12667470)
I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Well, at least if you let it out in a vacuum you won’t go anywhere.

JayUtah 17th April 2019 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12667470)
I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Nope, I predict a further stream of "What about...?" queries that beg the question of their own relevance. This is what's so infuriating about trying to educate people who really need some remedial study, but are convinced of their own correctness. The sheer volume of potential cargo-cult "arguments" tries the patience.

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667296)
How is it observed? Why is there no unedited video of a rocket in space?

There are.

However, they are usually edited for length. Space travel is long.

JayUtah 17th April 2019 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12667472)
How do you account for rockets actually moving in vaccuum?

I'm pretty sure he contends there aren't any. I suspect that's what he meant by the "no unedited video" comment and the veiled reference to Gravity. The argument that reads out between the lines is that all evidence that purports to be of spaceflight is fake.

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667318)
I wonder if they performed the movie Gravity in space as well

It would be nice if you could muster more than a small sentence at a time, so we can have a good starting point for a discussion.

If you're trying to imply that the video evidence we have is falsified, you'll have to explain how they managed to do that in a time where the technology to convincingly simulate space travel didn't exist. Which kind of includes now, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz (Post 12667322)
What is it with conspiracists and their obsession with video?

It's easier to interpret to fit one's agenda.

sts60 17th April 2019 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12667472)
How do you account for rockets actually moving in vaccuum?

That’s the thing. Theoretical blunders aside, just like the flat-Earth believers, the premise is observed to be wrong.

Proponents invariably must then claim that space flight itself is a hoax, which I guess (as have several others) is where Gingervytes is probably headed. The problem is that these people invariably have no idea at all what they’re talking about, which is always entertaining when they start trying to explain this claim to people who do this for a living (like some of us in this thread).

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667348)
Therefore edited video could potentially be fiction and thus unreliable

You could be a computer program.

Bare possibilities are not reasonable criteria to discount observable reality.

Besides, there is no length of video that couldn't be made with today's technology, so your objection about the edited nature of a video is irrelevant.

Armitage72 17th April 2019 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12667450)
Are you serious? Really. I’m starting to think you’re just trolling.


A sock puppet of someone who really misses the Stundies and is trying to bring them back singlehandedly?

bknight 17th April 2019 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12667474)
Well, at least if you let it out in a vacuum you won’t go anywhere.

I'm really glad I didn't have a mouthful of water when I read this. ;)

Agatha 17th April 2019 11:28 AM

Gingervytes, when you look at the International Space Station through your own eyes as it passes over your location, how do you reconcile that with your notion that space flight is impossible? How do you think the ISS got there?

bknight 17th April 2019 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 12667487)
A sock puppet of someone who really misses the Stundies and is trying to bring them back singlehandedly?

I'm too new to have observed these in action, but I think there are several of his posts that would qualify for submission.

Dr.Sid 17th April 2019 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agatha (Post 12667491)
Gingervytes, when you look at the International Space Station through your own eyes as it passes over your location, how do you reconcile that with your notion that space flight is impossible? How do you think the ISS got there?

ISS is there. But vacuum isn't. Everyone knows the heavens are filled with angels. And that's what gives the resistance needed for the rocket engine to work. :cool:

Agatha 17th April 2019 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 12667497)
ISS is there. But vacuum isn't. Everyone knows the heavens are filled with angels. And that's what gives the resistance needed for the rocket engine to work. :cool:

Your thesis intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your regular newsletter.

JayUtah 17th April 2019 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12667485)
Bare possibilities are not reasonable criteria to discount observable reality.

The next question should be what evidence would convince Gingervytes that space flight is possible. What evidence would he accept?

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667354)
Doesn’t matter how you release the pressure, gas always expands freely in a vacuum

What part of "it can't go through the engine bell walls" is causing you issues?

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12667367)
Well since rockets don't work in space there was no landing on the Moon and subsequent takeoff. :rolleyes:

To be fair, we knew we were going there as soon as he posted that space is a lie.

Horatius 17th April 2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agatha (Post 12667491)
Gingervytes, when you look at the International Space Station through your own eyes as it passes over your location, how do you reconcile that with your notion that space flight is impossible? How do you think the ISS got there?


Assumes facts not in evidence.

As has been noted before, an awful lot of CTists are just stunningly ignorant of the world around them, even if learning about it would require nothing more than just looking at it. Remember the one who was convinced that the Chemtrails had poisoned her water, because the spray from her water hose was making rainbows?

bknight 17th April 2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12667504)
To be fair, we knew we were going there as soon as he posted that space is a lie.

I was just trying to push it so we can ridicule his "belifs". ;)

bknight 17th April 2019 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatius (Post 12667506)
Assumes facts not in evidence.

As has been noted before, an awful lot of CTists are just stunningly ignorant of the world around them, even if learning about it would require nothing more than just looking at it. Remember the one who was convinced that the Chemtrails had poisoned her water, because the spray from her water hose was making rainbows?

You just can't fix stupid.

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12667372)
Your garbled interpretation of Newtonian mechanics aside, why would video be better than tracking data, or radar, or onboard inertial telemetry, the primary ways we (people who launch and operate spacecraft for a living) actually measure the response of spacecraft to rocket operation in space?

Bonus question: you do understand that NASA did not invent the equations of motion, nor the equations of rocketry, and that spacecraft are routinely operated by civil, military, and commercial organizations from many nations? Right?

Well, he quotes movies as if they are wisdom and seems to have a movie understanding of science. Par for the course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667420)
You can’t prove anything

Wow, solipsism, so fast?

The problem is, you don't want it proved. You've set yourself up to be impossible to convince anyway. Part of having an open mind is realising that you can be wrong, and you've discarded that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667443)
What about when the sun heats air, why does it rise up.

Density. Don't get things mixed up. Focus.

JoeMorgue 17th April 2019 11:41 AM

Okay place your bets. What's the Woo?

As bookie I'll lay down odds.

40% - Religious Woo "It's heaven and you can't go there because God"
40% - Science Woo "Space isn't there and big-science is lying to us to protect the massive... let me check... .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000001% of the Federal Budget they get every year.
5% - Full on TimeCube Woo "Space is 4th dimensional parallel tesserect string theory quantum flux...."
5% - Other, please specify.

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12667483)
That’s the thing. Theoretical blunders aside, just like the flat-Earth believers, the premise is observed to be wrong.

Proponents invariably must then claim that space flight itself is a hoax, which I guess (as have several others) is where Gingervytes is probably headed. The problem is that these people invariably have no idea at all what they’re talking about, which is always entertaining when they start trying to explain this claim to people who do this for a living (like some of us in this thread).

All he has to do is buy a GoPro and a weather balloon and he can see space for himself.

Dr.Sid 17th April 2019 11:43 AM

Come on, it's flat Earth, what else ?

phunk 17th April 2019 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes (Post 12667354)
Doesn’t matter how you release the pressure, gas always expands freely in a vacuum

Do you think it's impossible for an expanding gas cloud in a vacuum to have a net momentum?

Belz... 17th April 2019 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatius (Post 12667506)
Assumes facts not in evidence.

As has been noted before, an awful lot of CTists are just stunningly ignorant of the world around them, even if learning about it would require nothing more than just looking at it. Remember the one who was convinced that the Chemtrails had poisoned her water, because the spray from her water hose was making rainbows?

A personal favourite of mine.

Right next to the "no stars on the moon pictures" part of the Apollo hoax nonsense.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.