0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hello.I have read this entire thread and joined this board specifically to revive this topic.
In summary/prelude, I want to say I agree 100% with what Truthseeker67 has been arguing.
Theoretical science is the new religion. Its disbelievers, heretics.
Quote from: SteinUntStein on 20/01/2015 14:32:16In summary/prelude, I want to say I agree 100% with what Truthseeker67 has been arguing.Excellent! Perhaps you will enlighten us, then, as to where satellite TV and GPS signals come from, how some of my friends got into and out of various orbiting machines (some of which you can still see in the night sky), and why communications companies and the military continue to spend zillions of dollars on things that don't work. Or just start by explaining where Newton, Whittle, von Braun et al went wrong. QuoteTheoretical science is the new religion. Its disbelievers, heretics.Wrong. Heresy is the essence of science.
Youtube is also a friend here:Video of propeller and rocket operating in evacuated jar: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFMObYCccU [nofollow]If you don't trust the vid, maybe go visit the museum?Some footage from the side of a rocket launching into space://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEom0G30Gic [nofollow]Also here is footage of our mission to the comet Temple 1. Deep Impact's view approaching Temple 1//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKls-sN56Jk [nofollow]View of Deep Impact hitting Temple 1//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dryvDlB1hWA [nofollow]Please don't waste our time claiming this footage is faked.
There is no such thing as a vacuum, you must know that, unless you mean the thing used to clean carpet...So, no "vacuated" jar.
The quality of a partial vacuum refers to how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. Other things equal, lower gas pressure means higher-quality vacuum. For example, a typical vacuum cleaner produces enough suction to reduce air pressure by around 20%. Much higher-quality vacuums are possible. Ultra-high vacuum chambers, common in chemistry, physics, and engineering, operate below one trillionth (10−12) of atmospheric pressure (100 nPa), and can reach around 100 particles/cm3. Outer space is an even higher-quality vacuum, with the equivalent of just a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter on average. According to modern understanding, even if all matter could be removed from a volume, it would still not be "empty" due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, transiting gamma- and cosmic rays, neutrinos, along with other phenomena in quantum physics. In modern particle physics, the vacuum state is considered as the ground state of matter.
Which museum and what will I be shown there?
I can make that video in 20 minutes in my basement.
You sure have a lot you learn...
All, museums are different so it depends on the particular museum.
In space there is no third law and if i believed there was i wouldn't of started this topic.
Take a good long look at just how the OP thinks thrust works, i.e.the reason why thrust cant work is simplethrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0or put like this rocket =0 thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrustto cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's second and third laws. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass will cause a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction on that system. The force applied on a surface in a direction perpendicular or normal to the surface is called thrust. Force, and thus thrust, is measured in the International System of Units (SI) as the newton (symbol: N), and represents the amount needed to accelerate 1 kilogram of mass at the rate of 1 metre per second squared.In mechanical engineering, force orthogonal to the main load (such as in parallel helical gears) is referred to as thrust.
The main problem with this thread is that the OP has no idea of how thrust works. His description was nothing but gibberish and shows no understanding of Newton's third law since the OP simply has no grasp of it, i.e.Quote from: truthseeker67 In space there is no third law and if i believed there was i wouldn't of started this topic.which is clearly untrue.
If a statement is a law of physics then it can't depend on where in space its true. Otherewise it wouldn't be a law.
Quote from: truthseeker67Take a good long look at just how the OP thinks thrust works, i.e.the reason why thrust cant work is simplethrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0or put like this rocket =0 thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrustto cause a reaction so no movement would take place.QuoteClearly the OP is confusing thrust with the weight of an object. I already explained his mistake but since he doesn't understand physics he was unable to understand the explanation.
Clearly the OP is confusing thrust with the weight of an object. I already explained his mistake but since he doesn't understand physics he was unable to understand the explanation.
His error is this: let us first definne thrust
In mechanical engineering, force orthogonal to the main load (such as in parallel helical gears) is referred to as thrust.
Essentially Wiki is saying that thrust is a force (described by Newton's 3rd law). The units of thrust is the Newton. Weight essentially has nothing to do with the definition of thrust.
The only thing it has in common is that they have the same units.
The thrust of a rocket is the force on the rocket which accelerates it through space. The weight of an object is the gravitational force on an object.
The OP couldn't understand this so after we explaine his error to him he started insulting us.
I think most of the posts on this thread have become so negative in response to the "style of debate" employed by those arguing that thrust cannot work in space. Science is based in evidence--Since we cannot actually show you a rocket working in space without putting you there yourself (though maybe we can crowd-fund to send one of you into orbit...), and any footage we offer is accused of being faked, and any examples of any space missions lead to talk of vast international conspiracies, what evidence are we left with to discuss? Even basic textbook science is "open to debate" because misunderstanding and/or mistrust of well-established theory.Perhaps one of you would like to put forth some evidence, beyond thought experiment, that rockets don't work in space?I would like to mention, however, that skepticism is healthy for scientific maintenance and progress. It is good to have people constantly question even those things that we all take for granted. That said, those who question well-established theory are more often wrong than right, and either way, make few friends. Not everyone who questions dogma is a Galileo. I thank you for performing this necessary and usually thankless part of scientific discourse. But in this instance, you're still wrong.
A rocket works, for us laymen, by pushing off something. A terrestrial-launched rocket goes nowhere until thrust is given, pushing the rocket off the pad because the expelled air and heat push off the ground. Or the submarine. When launched from a plane, the rocket is dropped from under the wing, and shortly thereafter its thrust begins and the rocket goes forward, this time because it is pushing on air. Were you to take a Saturn-type setup and drop it from, oh, half a mile up, point upwards, somehow, and let it drop, then fire the thrusters, whether or not you make it up, and so escape that gravitational pull, would be a risky proposition. This is just 1/2 a mile, in Earth atmopshere.
Place your attention to the inside of the rocket. A tube, if you will, with one end open to space and the other end sealed off. An explosion takes place located in the center of the tube. From this location at the center, there will be force directed in two basic directions, out the back at the open end and likewise, toward the front end which is sealed off. The force directed out the back end is not what propels the craft, it is the force applied toward the front of the rocket. Because the explosion is initiated in the confines of the rocket, the sealed end of the craft feels the push from the pressure wave and experiences movement away from the initial explosion. Thus the rocket moves thru the vacuum. The expanding gases out the back of the rocket have little to do with the motion of the craft.
Quote from: SteinUntStein on 24/01/2015 16:23:39False. A rocket pushes off of itself. By forcing propellent in one direction, the rocket goes the opposite direction. If the rocket were pushing off of something, wouldn't it matter what it was pushing off from? Wouldn't it be more effective to push off the hard, stable ground or launch platform than pushing off the air? Well, it doesn't make a difference what is behind the rocket, so I posit that it isn't actually pushing off.Yes a rocket pushes off itself, but it needs a catalyst, as you say very next sentence "by forcing propellant in one direction."No propellant force, no motion, necessary vs. sufficient conditions.
False. A rocket pushes off of itself. By forcing propellent in one direction, the rocket goes the opposite direction. If the rocket were pushing off of something, wouldn't it matter what it was pushing off from? Wouldn't it be more effective to push off the hard, stable ground or launch platform than pushing off the air? Well, it doesn't make a difference what is behind the rocket, so I posit that it isn't actually pushing off.
Blow up a balloon. Keep the end closed. No forward movement. Let the hole open, you get forward motion. You get it because the air inside is being expelled outside. Use the air inside as analogy for the spend fuel. Without exhaust it goes nowhere.
Seems to me in an alleged vacuum that air would be expelled, but just kind of dribble out the end.