0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Not one item that isn't in orbit?Voyager 1Voyager 2Pioneer 1Pioneer 2That adds up to at least 4. And, I think there are a few more, not counting those probes that have been sent to other planets such as mars, either landing on the planet, getting destroyed in the atmosphere, or inserted into orbit around another planet.
Quote from: lean bean on 20/09/2013 19:40:59Quote from: truthseeker67 on 04/09/2013 00:13:29Look have you ever asked yourself why all the satalites and space station included are all only in orbit, there is not one item of any sort further than orbit because they cant get there. they call something a space station but in fact it is not in true space it is still in the earths boundarys which we call orbit and guess what thrust works there and guess why? My boldNot one item that isn't in orbit?Voyager 1Voyager 2Pioneer 1Pioneer 2That adds up to at least 4. And, I think there are a few more, not counting those probes that have been sent to other planets such as mars, either landing on the planet, getting destroyed in the atmosphere, or inserted into orbit around another planet. The International Space Station is in "orbit", rather than a non orbital trajectory because it was assembled in parts in space, and it is hard to get volunteers for Pluto flybys, especially when they turn the space heaters down to about 4K.
Quote from: truthseeker67 on 04/09/2013 00:13:29Look have you ever asked yourself why all the satalites and space station included are all only in orbit, there is not one item of any sort further than orbit because they cant get there. they call something a space station but in fact it is not in true space it is still in the earths boundarys which we call orbit and guess what thrust works there and guess why? My bold
Look have you ever asked yourself why all the satalites and space station included are all only in orbit, there is not one item of any sort further than orbit because they cant get there. they call something a space station but in fact it is not in true space it is still in the earths boundarys which we call orbit and guess what thrust works there and guess why?
Dr A'Hearn mentioned that if the comet "spins up" (i.e the jets increase the rotation rate), there is a possbility of it fragmenting (like C/2007 Q3). Will ground based scopes or the spacecraft continue to track 103P and for how long to see if this increase in spin rate occurs?
There is also a philosophical reason why NASA space rocketry is impossible: gas, via rocket engine exhaust or otherwise, has no effect, does no work, in a vacuum and cannot be used to move objects through space.
In 1852 scientist James Prescott Joule, for whom the unit of energy Joule is named, discovered that gas does no work in a vacuum
Today I cannot find an example of an object moving through space via gas/jet propulsion although streams of gas and particles shooting into space exist. Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space.
The plumes of water vapour were discovered by Cassini in 2005 and seemed to be related to the tiger stripes, but their precise source was unknown until now.
The jets on Enceladus were discovered by the interplanetary spaceprobe Cassini. How did Cassini get to Saturn and its moon Enceladus, if thrust doesn't work in space?
... Once someone has been indoctrinated, invested themselves in its beliefs, it is nearly impossible for them to divest.
Gas does no work in a vacuum.
There is also a philosophical reason ...
Gas does no work in a vacuum. It is only a passive participant and not an active force in space. We cannot use it as the basis for space travel. Bottling up gas and shooting it out of a tiny nozzle won't change its basic physical properties inside a vacuum, won't suddenly invalidate the laws of thermodynamics. The theory of space travel based on gas jets and/or liquid propellants is a science fiction from the 1800's (Jules Verne et. al.) similar to the philosopher's stone and other magical, mystical pursuits we now look down upon. There is also the matter of the faked/fraudulent results of rocket pioneers such as Goddard which I will get to later.If you ask why this is hoax is still going on it is because science has become a religion and NASA it's church. Specifically space travel is one of the Holiest of Holies. Try debunking a religion/cult and see how far you get. Once someone has been indoctrinated, invested themselves in its beliefs, it is nearly impossible for them to divest. For years I believed that space travel was the pinnacle of man's achievement. Now I have to wonder if any rocket has ever been past as far as we can throw it up from the ground.
You can't see that you've indoctrinated yourself to believe this fallacy about thrust in space blindly, without analysing the evidence around you and providing alternate theorys to explain the observations.
... it's down to words not just pictures.
Imagine a hollow cube in interstellar space, at the centre of this cube there is an explosion. Each inner wall of the cube will receive an equal pressure (push) from the expanding gasses of that explosion, and so the cube does not move in any direction.Take away one wall of that cube, and repeat the central explosion.Again, the gaseous particles hit all walls with equal pressure except the missing wall. The pressure on the wall opposite that missing wall is not countered, and so the cube moves in the direction opposite to the missing wall.Thrust in interstellar space.
You assume time and space have no affect on the pressure produced against the wall opposite the missing wall by the explosion.
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity….thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrust to cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
look when water comes out of a hosepipe with high pressure it is simply chucking outweight, and thrust is weight why do you think rocket engines are said to create pounds of thrust,
In United States customary units, the pound can be either a unit of force or a unit of mass
Quote from: CitronBleuYou assume time and space have no affect on the pressure produced against the wall opposite the missing wall by the explosion. That's more than a mere assumption; it's an empirical fact and conforms to the laws of physics. Beany is describing the implications of Newton’s third law – where there is an action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.
The box in Beany’ s example is a simplified form of a combustion chamber. Here’s an even simpler example; if you through a ball against a wall the ball will bounce off the wall. That happens because the ball exerts a force on the wall. In response to the force exerted on the ball by the wall, according to Newton’s third law, the ball exerts an equal and opposite force on the wall. That’s one of the most well accepted facts in all of physics. This has been a well-established empirical fact for well over 300 years now. A great deal of what happens in nature is based on this fact.
The topic of this thread is how thrust affects a rocket. The opening post was off off about all of this. We (or at least I) corrected him.
It should have been obvious to him that if he were right then all the rockets we've used to explore space would never have worked. The space shuttle wouldn’t have been able to do all the things that we know that it did, we'd never have been able to send probes to Mars and most of the other planets in the solar system and we’d never have a Global Positioning System (GPS) that many people use nowadays.
Then we were insulted for our efforts with the claim that all cranks use, i.e. that we're all brain washed and can't think for ourselves, which is utter nonsense.
Part of a physicists training is lab work where we experimentally explore what we learn in class. So we aren’t merely told these things but are expected to observe them in the laboratory for ourselves.