Test questions for our thread starter to calibrate what we are dealing with.
Earth shape. Flat, round or other? Is space real? When we see the ISS passing overhead, what are we seeing? Why are all developed countries lying about the reality of space flight? Why are physicists and engineers lying about space flight? If communication satellites are not real, what are all those satellite dishes pointed at? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"If you say so, buddy; now what?" |
Quote:
|
I know I was a mod there for many years.
|
I wish you'd come back, at least to the modeling thread.
|
Quote:
The Patriots suck *******, Fence!!! |
Kittens. Thread needs kittens. And recipes. Kitten recipes.
|
rocket cannot propel in the vacuum of space
Quote:
The accelerated gas exerts a force equal and opposite to the force accelerating it. The base of rocket science :-). |
My wife and I often help groups of kids, sometimes as young as first graders, build and launch model rockets. During the build sessions, we describe some of the fundamentals of how rockets work. Most of the kids seem to understand. Not sure why it would be so challenging to an adult.
|
Quote:
No need to post a fake proof, the title is proof the OP is BUNK. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ingredients 1 Mama Cat 1 or more Daddy(ies) Cat(s) 1 Barry White Album |
Quote:
But how could NASA have managed to keep this hoax a secret for all these years? Surely someone would have figured it out by now? Well now someone has (or is about to) so we might as well come clean and tell the truth. You see, Gingervytes, the reason NASA has no trouble with people finding out about their hoax is that we are all in on it - every single person in the Universe - except you. But that's not all. Your mathematical proof that the thrust equation is false is entirely correct - in the real World. But you are not in the real World. You are actually in The Matrix, and the rest of us are computer simulations created by thought-capable machines to control you while using your body as an energy source. Actually I lie. You don't have a whole body anymore, you're just a brain in a jar. Don't believe it? OK you got me. The Real Truth this time - you are actually just a computer simulation that we created to test the Matrix's defenses against trolls spouting nonsense (seems to be holding up OK so far...). Or... perhaps you are not a computer simulation inside The Matrix, NASA isn't covering up a vast conspiracy, and rockets do work in space. Which scenario do you think is more likely? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
What prevents the rocket exhaust, whatever phase it is in, from pushing the rocket in exactly the same way as the bullet pushes the gun? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ25g0Whgt0 Slip the cartridge into the chamber, point the gun in a safe direction and fire the weapon. When you've done that, report back what you felt. |
Quote:
|
rocket cannot propel in the vacuum of space
Quote:
Taking bets? Anyway, I consider highly irresponsible giving somebody with Gingervytes' technical expertise any ideas about playing with guns and ammunition. |
Quote:
The check is to open the vacuum chamber to air and see if there is a change in thrust. There won't be any significant change. You're just handwaving way the inconvenient evidence |
Quote:
1. Certainty 2. Stupidity I've always wondered why, if rockets don't work in a vacuum, aerospace companies like SpaceX make specially modified versions of their rocket engines with a larger exhaust section and a significantly larger expansion nozzle to maximize the engine's efficiency in the vacuum of space. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wrrw7ipcu...ines.jpg?raw=1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/j9jz05r3qq...sion.jpg?raw=1 Left to right: Falcon 1 Merlin 1C, Falcon 9 Merlin 1C and Falcon 9 M-Vac 1C without extension nozzle - and this is the extension nozzle |
Quote:
Quote:
Dave |
What do you mean by solid chunks?
Why does it matter if it is solid or if it is in a chunk? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Gingervytes, I took another look at your derivation. Your math isn't necessarily wrong (though that Ve=V is dangerous because it's not necessarily true anywhere but the exit point), but your interpretation is confused. While Ve is no longer explicit in the final formulation, it's still implied.
Try this: Make a little diagram with a pipe diameter and a fluid density and a Ve and calculate the force. Now, change just Ve and calculate the force again. It'll be different, because when you change Ve, Mdot will change too. So Ve still matters, it's just not explicit. |
Quote:
1) Flow under pressure. The pressure is against something. That is your equal and opposite force (and what propels a rocket, in air as well as in vacuum). 2) An object falling under gravity. Silly claim that the opposite force should be against whatever dropped the object. Of course it is not. The force of gravity works between two masses. In the case in question, it is the falling object and Earth. Earth pulls down on the object and the object pulls up on the Earth (but as the Earth is a zillion times more massive that the object, the object moves while Earth stays virtually unperturbed). 3) Buoyancy. The pressure is between different parts of the fluid. As the floating object is less dense than the fluid, the downwards pressure it exerts is less than the upwards pressure the fluid exerts on it. Displacement of masses happen within the fluid. #2 and #3 are totally irrelevant for the discussion of rockets. Hans |
Quote:
You might intuitively think that a solid (and hence dense) object like a bullet being accelerated would cause more push, but you would be mistaken: The burning fuel releases a given amount of energy, which is directed towards the nozzle/barrel. The density of the mass accelerated will determine the velocity it attains, but the energy will be the same. And hence the opposite energy accelerating the rocket will also be the same. Hans |
Quote:
Are you claiming that the exhaust from the rocket has no mass? |
Quote:
Regardless, gas has mass. Therefore moving gas must have momentum. That momentum is calculable. It is a firm fact of physics that momentum must be conserved. Amid all your attempts to muddy the waters with irrelevant analogies and demonstrations, you have omitted to explain why you believe this fact doesn't hold for rockets. If Newtonian physics is universal, then rockets must work the way we say. |
Oh, I see I already explained how a rocket basically works. Not that I have much hope of this turning into a rational discussion, but .... I repost the explanation here for you ro re-read:
Quote:
Hans |
I am tickled pink I knew the science on this stuff already. I feel almost adult! Almost.
*** Jay, The nozzle part is new to me. As I've always been fascinated by steam engines (the history of changes in stream locomotives is like an object lesson in structured creativity), I was wondering if you know of any other tidbits of still-valid inventions relating to steam? (Apart from it's larger role in deriving the 2nd Law of Thermo.) Thks. ETA: I guess that may be a derail, though. Shucks. For another rainy day, then. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.