New York Times says rockets do not work in space in 1920!!!!!!

Demonstrably false.


Demonstrably false.
There are dozens of entities that have access to space, and many hundred thousands that can build vacuum chambers.

Since your poor excuse for "theorising" has lead you to conclusions that are demonstrably UNTRUE, the only rational conclusion is that you made a mistake somewhere.
Not our job to figure out what you did wrong.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. — Richard Feynman

And you have yet to explain the STEREO data...

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Start watching at 3:40.

And AGAIN you only prove you don't understand what is happening. The reaction happens internally but it does work BECAUSE it is ejecting the fuel. Momentum is conserved. Trying to compare it to someone lifting themselves off the floor is a false analogy.

Work is not done outside the combustion chamber. The combustion chamber is not in a vacuum. External pressure doesn't matter.

Now you're just lying. Not only are there other space agencies, there are hundreds of companies that have had equipment launched into space that only works right because of where it is. Space is not exclusive to NASA.

Combustion chamber is not in a vacuum.

You STILL can't explain STEREO so you just ignore it hoping it will go away.

the liar is your father.... and you really are fooling only your own and other fools like you. For its written in the holy books that Lunatics fall in fire... So I am warning you moonstruck lunatics... time is here to expose your evil deceive... And think not you can escape the persecutions which will happen when the world discovers you have deceived them and murdered many people to hide the lies...

STEREO IS as everything NASA does, lies, deceive and... Computer Generated Images...

but why don't you Moonstruck Lunatics start prove rockets work in vacuum.

I submit that all of these NASA claims are nothing but sheer science-fiction fantasy - and that rockets / spaceships not even be physically able to reach / surpass the 100km altitude mark


A Rocket in vacuum will fall back to Earth... I dearly hope NASA-the-rocket-scientist will come by and defend thier theories.

We (the human species - or any of our gravity-bound objects) have no means to propel our weights beyond the boundaries of the fluids of air, much as dolphins have no means to propel their weights beyond the boundaries of the fluids of water. Squibs (calamari) propel themselves very fast indeed by ejecting water out of their bodies (much like rockets eject hot air from their nozzles), and sometimes, squibs will even jump out of the sea and crash-land upon ship decks. But so far, we don't know of any high-flying, cosmic space-squibs.

NASA "PHYSICS": THICK AS A BRICK

why can't you prove that balloon experiment in a vacuum chamber???... Ha ha ha... then we can see that rockets can not fly in vacuum like that balloon does in our atmosphere... ha ha ha.

Just to be clear: I don't believe your typical off the shelf rocket works in a vacuum as suggested by NASA. I will hereby illustrate - using their own "children's-book" approach - how NASA's claims concerning rocket propulsion are wrong and, worse still, deliberately deceptive.

As you are probably aware, NASA often use the analogy of a man sitting in a boat throwing bricks out the back to demonstrate how their rockets work; according to them the brick represents the rocket exhaust.

This is false.

In fact it is the man's hand that represents the rocket exhaust, whilst the brick represents the atmosphere. The bricks are something to push against. And they get lighter (less atmosphere) as you move further away from the starting point.

You see what they did there?

The same principle can be applied to their 'Newton's Chariot' model as well.

The action><reaction force of a given brick launched by a man in a boat is proportional to the mass of the brick - much like the air mass (i.e. the DENSITY of the atmospheric pressure against which a rocket exhaust pushes) determines the action><reaction force which propels the rocket upwards - and away from the force of gravity (constantly reclaiming the rocket's weight).

So, in answer to your video: The Balloon or the B/M/S bricks (Big/Medium/Small) in my below graphic represent the dwindling atmospheric pressure - and its undisputed, decreasing density with increasing altitudes.

As the boat man runs out of bricks altogether (think: "a rocket reaching the vacuum of space"), there are no more forces available to him to make the boat (or the rocket) ascend.

The man in the boat may try and throw imaginary / non-existent bricks downstream - but his muscular actions will just generate a minuscule recoil effect/force on the boat - far too weak to keep his boat from drifting downstream. What NASA keep claiming is that IT IS THIS minuscule recoil effect that keep their big rockets flying upwards - and into the outer space.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

NASA says that their rockets' OPTIMAL "100%" performance (for speed & efficiency) occurs at a certain (unspecified) altitude when - in their own words - "the atmospheric pressure equals the pressure at the nozzle." NASA therefore implicitly admits that the action><reaction forces needed to propel their rockets up in the sky are directly related to / dependent on the surrounding atmospheric pressure /density:

Source of original rocket nozzle over/under expansion diagram: [link to en.wikipedia.org]

It stands to reason that a rocket ascending through our atmosphere will reach its highest speed at some given, ideal moment of its ascent - when the ratio between the opposed forces of its exhaust-thrust (regulated by air density) versus aerodynamic drag (regulated by air density) reach an optimal balance. The problem is: what happens when the exhaust-thrust runs out of molecules and mass (think: "Brick-molecules and mass") against which to exert its very thrust?

Prove it. Show how they can see the backside of the sun and see sunspots BEFORE they are visible to Earth. Does NASA employ psychics too?



It has been proven. It isn't our fault you don't want to understand.

The brick represents the fuel mass being expelled. You're attempting to twist the analogy. A rocket is not pushing against the atmosphere, a propeller works by pushing on the atmosphere, a rock works by expelling a given mass at a given velocity. That is what produces thrust. Likewise a man throwing a brick is expelling a given mass at a given velocity, producing thrust in the opposite direction. The hand represents the combustion chamber and nozzle, which the expelled mass is effectively "pushing against."

Last Edited by Astromut on 03/30/2015 02:47 PM

The "recoil effect" is not miniscule when you consider total momentum. The mass of the exhaust may be low but the velocity is high.

As I have said before NASA's description of rockets moving through space defies basic principles of physics you can confirm in your own home with simple experiments.

NASA says the gas expanded in the nozzle of the rocket will push against the ship.

This is patently false and goes against the law that all forces immediately move towards the path of least resistance. As such gas would flow into the vacuum and not against the ship. If you place a live wire where a piece of metal touches a piece of rubber the electricity doesn't try to force itself through the rubber. It all immediately rushes into the metal. In the same way any gas expanded in the nozzle of a ship, which is exposed to the vacuum, will immediately be lost to the vacuum because the gas will always flow instantly to the area of lowest pressure, which is its path of least resistance. Gas always flows to the area of lowest pressure.

Note that it doesn't matter how much gas you expand in a vacuum. There will always be zero (0) pressure. Even locally. Why? Because each gas molecule that escapes into the vacuum never stops, is never caught by the one behind it and never catches up to the one in front. A billion, a trillion, a quadrillion molecules can all flow into the vacuum without ever slowing down or hitting each other thereby never increasing the pressure. NASA will tell you some molecules are hitting the side of the nozzle, no, the vacuum will suck all of the combustion. The lure of 0 pressure is too great to resist. As soon as the first molecule starts to expand into the vacuum, they all follow in an orderly sequence.

Also, gas cannot push against the ship and be pulled into space at the same time.

Here's an experiment you can do at home that replicates how NASA says rockets work. You'll see how wrong they are.
Take a small spring and on top of it place a small object, one that can be lifted by the spring. Now press the spring down onto the ground with the object on top and let it go. Mark the distance mentally. Now take the same spring and object, press it between your thumb and forefinger and let of both fingers at the same time, about chest high off the floor. Mark the distance. Which one went higher? According to NASA the compressed spring, which is a force, should press into the object even when off the ground the way they say gas presses up into a rocket. But wait, you might say, gravity is pulling the spring down. OK. I would have said that the spring presses down because that's the path of least resistance for the force of the expanding spring, but, anyway, you see how the spring can't both push up and down at the same time. Springs only work when one side is fixed against an object. That is not an aberration. It is the law of physics. One force, the expanding spring, cannot move downwards, whether enticed, pulled or a combination, and push upwards at the same time. Neither can electricity. Nor gravity. Nor expanding gas in the vacuum.

If you can't get your spring to push up when in mid-air, what's going to happen to your rocket with you try to release that gas into the vacuum?

and STILL you ignore the fact that the combustion chamber is not in a vacuum.

"...perhaps if I'd stated "the man's hand, in the act of throwing the brick, represents the rocket exhaust" then things would be clearer.

After all, what are you doing when you throw a brick if not imparting pressure/thrust upon it?

But if you want an even simpler (& more practical) demonstration of how NASA's model of rocket propulsion is flawed, then take an ordinary firework rocket & attach a shield to it, just below the nozzle, thus blocking the exhaust from interacting with the atmosphere.

According to NASA it should still take off, as the work is being done within the rocket itself, but of course it will not; it will merely sit & sputter & go absolutely nowhere..

Indeed: sit, sputter, go nowhere; much like NASA apologists are wont to do when faced with the incontestable fact that the stupid fucking sci-fi wank-fantasy toys they worship so reverently cannot get anywhere near their beloved fucking sci-fi wank-fantasy 'outer space'.

Oh, and that's before we even consider the ineffable mystery of how NASA's rockets, with their dubious alleged maximum exhaust velocities of between 5000 & 10,000 mph can somehow accelerate so far beyond those speeds that they achieve the necessary escape velocity from Earth of 25,000 mph, let alone the velocity for low Earth orbit of 13,500 mph? It takes some serious Newton-abuse to justify such clearly impossible claims but since when have NASA given a flying fuck about the laws of physics?

And what about all the problems that heat from air-friction would cause at these mind-boggling speeds? The nose & wing leading edges of the SR-71 spy-plane had to be made of titanium to cope with the 500+C heat from traveling at 3500 mph, so what would happen to NASA's flimsy aluminum, mild steel & epoxy resin contraptions at 4 times that velocity? No amount of mathe-magic or algebra-cadabra could help them explain this because it is beyond bloody obvious to all but madmen, bastards & gorillas that EVERYTHING WOULD FUCKING MELT INTO A FIERY BALL OF FUCKING DEATH!!!

Further, & in the final analysis, anyone with a practical understanding of Free Expansion cannot help but realize that NASA's rockets simply must have huge problems operating efficiently in anything close to a hard vacuum of near infinite extent...

No, NASA does NOT say that would work. Because the exhaust would then be exerting a pressure on the shield as well as the combustion chamber. The shield being attached to the rocket would cause a force in the opposite direction. AGAIN your analogies suck!

NASA is lying to me with the "massflow" equation for rocket motion because I can prove to myself experimentally that if it is easier for a force to push down than it is to push up the force will always push down and never push up. And as such the expanding gas in a rocket always pushes down into the atmosphere.

So how does a rocket lift off the ground and fly? My explanation follows. Note that under my claims a rocket cannot travel in space.

Taking a look at the Saturn V rocket with 5 F1 engines used by Apollo 11 we can start to see that "Rocket Science" is, at the core, nothing more than basic physics.

1. According to Wikipedia a mix of Liquid Oxygen oxidizer and RP-1 Kerosene based fuel was used.

2. Taking into account the flow per minute of oxidizer, fuel and their expansion ratios 140,000,000 liters per engine were produced

3. All 5 engines combined produced 700,000,000 liters per minute or 700,000 cubic meters / 25,000,000 cubic feet of gas per minute, almost the volume of the Empire State Building

4. This gas upon expanding would have immediately gone to the area between the nozzle and the launch pad. This is because all forces always move towards the area of least resistance. The rocket offers resistance of 2,800,000 kg/9.8 = 285,000 N

5. In one second (1 sec) the combined Saturn V engines produce 11,666 liters cubic meters of gas. Treating the 5 engines as one, taking the diameter of the Saturn V rocket as 10m, the formula for the cylinder of gas which would be generated underneath the rocket gives us a height of 150m and the gas moving at 150 m/s is equal 540 km/hr. If there was no launchpad the gas would form a perfect cylinder in the first second.

6. If the gas is moving 150 m/s at time=1 second the acceleration is 300 m/s^2

7. Use Newton's 2nd Law as intended: F=MA, convert the weight of the gas expanded to mass
Find the force of the expanding gas to be approx 400,000 N

8. Some of the gas slammed into the launch pad bounces back towards the rocket with 400,000 N force because the mass of the launchpad is infinite and the collision is elastic even through some of the gas billows out into the air forming very nice, showy clouds. Note that most of the molecules bounce back towards the ship because otherwise the volume of expanding gas would completely surround and occlude the ship.

9. The gas bouncing towards the ship after hitting the launch pad meets the next wave of gas coming out of the nozzle and we have a collision of two objects of the same size (gas molecules) traveling the same speed (540 km/h) in which case they exchange velocities; the one coming from this ship goes back towards it and the one from the launchpad returns that way. Eventually, through these collisions, the ship is forced upwards and we have liftoff.

10. What happens once the ship is moving vertically? I haven't done all the research but here's my guess. For a rocket away from the launchpad, the gas expanding out of the nozzle creates a Hydraulic Jump, which is that ring around water being poured into a sink when water moves along the surface until a wave begins to slow down causing the waves behind it to catch it and bunch it up creating a wall of water. The same thing happens with the expanding gas, the leading edge of which slows down due to air resistance and the fact that force decreases as the square of the distance traveled forming a dense cloud of molecules, which the next wave of expanding gas collides with and so forth, once again pushing up on the rocket. This effect should last until the rocket runs out of fuel or the air becomes thin enough so that the hydraulic jump point is far enough away from the ship to be negligible. There are probably equations for this which I may look for at some point.

The bolded part is nonsense. You ignite the fuel and it expands in ALL directions. It isn't going to just turn around because something might be in the way. It has to hit that something first and that hitting will induce a force.

Using your nonsense "all forces always move towards the area of least resistance" a bomb would never create a crater because there is more resistance on the ground than in the air. A person could stand next to a bomb and not get hurt because there is more resistance through them than the surrounding air.

So many words, so much nonsense.

Since your conclusion is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, we KNOW it is nonsense.
The only one here who doesn't understand that is you.
Your idée fix has no relation to actual physics at all.
We have OBSERVED rockets working in a vacuum.
We have OBSERVED spacecraft changing their velocity in space.

Your obsessive denial of these FACTS only tells us that you are not rational about this.


Yet the data contained in these images can only be obtained by having a view at the back of the Sun.

IOW it is a PROVEN FACT that there is an observer in space that can see the back of the Sun.
How did it get there?


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/30/2015 04:59 PM

+1

I won't waste my time explaining Newton's 3rd law of motion (every action produces an equal and opposite reaction) to ignorant morons.

If we have observed these things then we will have to change our laws of physics.

I just realized why Newton's 3rd Law doesn't apply to NASA rocket engines.

The rocket is not pushing the gas into the atmosphere so there is no reason for the gas to be pushing back on the rocket.

So how does the gas come out of the rocket? By thermal expansion, not by the rocket pushing on the gas.

The thermally expanding gas pushes on the air beneath the rocket and the air pushes back causing it to disperse allowing the gas to hit the launch pad which pushes back without deforming throwing the gas back towards the rocket.

All NASA rocket engines do is supply liquid to a nozzle where a combustion occurs. The rocket is not pumping, pushing or forcing the expanding gases away from the rocket so the rocket has no claim to the "equal and opposite" force from the expanding gases.

Think of a flamethrower and how the blast doesn't push back the operator.

Although a rocket carries fuel in its tanks the expansion of said fuel takes place outside of the rocket, or more specifically underneath the rocket. Once the engine places the fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, which is open to the outside, the rocket loses all connection to the fuel, which will expand downwards and away from the rocket when ignited.

This is also why a rocket cannot work in the vacuum of space. Because there the fuel underneath the rocket would shoot out into space without any thrust even without Joule Expansion.

It seems so simple to me now after spending so much time researching how rockets work. The whole thing is loaded with hoax and psy-op, the thought that "rocket science" is something sophisticated and intellectually challenging seems silly. A rocket is nothing more than a tin can sitting on top of an explosion.

Of course the people who claim they are interested in rockets are really interested in space exploration and are willing to overlook various irregularities and believe certain lies to keep their dreams alive. In reality there is no program currently presented to the public by any country that has any hope of assisting man in traveling through space.

So if you were floating in the vacuum of space and I put a stick of dynamite under your ass you would not move, or be hurt when it went off since the expanding gasses would be sucked into the vacuum?

There is no ice surface for you to push off of in order to push the ball away from you in space moran!!

God this thread is dumb.

I simply refuse to belief that people such as the OP exist, people that can function talk, reason and write, but that lack basic common sense.

OP of this thread is ignorant of physics. I don't know how to dumb it down anymore to explain it to him on his own level.