Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,473 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 684,713
Pageviews Today: 1,059,736Threads Today: 427Posts Today: 8,488
03:16 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43205925
New Zealand
03/15/2019 07:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
it IS rocket science.
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
03/15/2019 07:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
ISS is fake
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77468786


That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

And you can *see* the ISS from the ground with your unaided eye.
Kung Fu Lover

User ID: 76809044
United States
03/15/2019 08:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Why do people compare a vacuum tube to space..
The hose of a cleaner is not a vacuum, there is one behind constantly created behind the filter in the grab bag..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


Because vacuum is low pressure. There is low pressure in the vacuum hose.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


stuff (matter) makes things happen.
a vacuum is the absence of all matter.

(note) even outer space is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72810610
United States
03/16/2019 12:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Why do people compare a vacuum tube to space..
The hose of a cleaner is not a vacuum, there is one behind constantly created behind the filter in the grab bag..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


Because vacuum is low pressure. There is low pressure in the vacuum hose.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


Hmm
Only low pressure at creation point of vacuum, that is why there is air being sucked in. Air being anywhere in a given area is not vacuum. wind is only slightly less dense than stagnant air, so you cannot test a wind tunnel for the conditions of vacuum.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77469576
Australia
03/16/2019 12:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Surprised Asstro hasn’t deleted this entire thread.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77433193
Canada
03/16/2019 12:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Why do people compare a vacuum tube to space..
The hose of a cleaner is not a vacuum, there is one behind constantly created behind the filter in the grab bag..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


Because vacuum is low pressure. There is low pressure in the vacuum hose.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


Hmm
Only low pressure at creation point of vacuum, that is why there is air being sucked in. Air being anywhere in a given area is not vacuum. wind is only slightly less dense than stagnant air, so you cannot test a wind tunnel for the conditions of vacuum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


Actually the constant movement of the vacuum fan creates a constant low pressure. Perhaps not a perfect vacuum but low pressure nonetheless. You also have to remember it is the low pressure that causes the rocket exhaust to escape.

If a indestructible rocket was on the sun where external pressure was higher than the rocket chamber, the exhaust wouldn’t come out of the rocket.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77449138
Canada
03/16/2019 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Surprised Asstro hasn’t deleted this entire thread.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77469576


Maybe he thinks people still believe his cartoon video.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76864035
United States
03/16/2019 01:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Great work OP. You can tell you are on the right track because the shills immediately attacked you. Keep it up man!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75852509


THIS^^^^^ Times infinity!!!!!
Remedial_Rebel

User ID: 77275768
United States
03/16/2019 02:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Surprised Asstro hasn’t deleted this entire thread.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77469576


Maybe he thinks people still believe his cartoon video.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77449138


I don't know what is behind the flat earth cult, but this just proves what disingenuous shills you are.

It has been posted over and over how to see the ISS for yourself.

[link to spotthestation.nasa.gov (secure)]

But you just ignore it and keep posting the same fallacies.

Last Edited by Remedial_Rebel on 03/16/2019 02:12 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77384446
Sweden
03/16/2019 02:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Absolute :bs2:.
 Quoting: Hungdaddy69 70390093


you can't bs math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76708078


what are the dots of light going over at night, matching the sighting guides for various satellites/space stations...and can be seen from widely separated viewing sites 100 miles away at the same time (at a different angle, of course)?

you can't bs orbital mechanics either...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622


It could be plane or balloons. The night sky was sparkling with start and lights before satellites

Still can’t bs math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76708078


bsflag

I can see ISS here in sweden when it flies over germany / poland.
Remedial_Rebel

User ID: 77275768
United States
03/16/2019 02:41 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
...


you can't bs math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76708078


what are the dots of light going over at night, matching the sighting guides for various satellites/space stations...and can be seen from widely separated viewing sites 100 miles away at the same time (at a different angle, of course)?

you can't bs orbital mechanics either...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622


It could be plane or balloons. The night sky was sparkling with start and lights before satellites

Still can’t bs math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76708078


bsflag

I can see ISS here in sweden when it flies over germany / poland.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77384446


ISS from Earth Germany , ISS observed by an amateur Telescope 9August 2015

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



The FE shills will no doubt deny this even though than can see it for themselves.

There are thousands of amateur photos of the ISS, but they are all hoaxes, right?

Last Edited by Remedial_Rebel on 03/16/2019 02:54 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77064257
United States
03/16/2019 02:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
it IS rocket science.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43205925


Amazon IS a dog park
imakemagicfeelingsand​iheal
User ID: 45767411
United States
03/16/2019 03:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
lololol


no



What the fuck is the diameter on a rocket?
CitizenPerth
FUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365

User ID: 77469608
Australia
03/16/2019 03:00 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
i really don't know where you were taught rocket science.. but anyhoos...

the thrust is provided by the rotund for thrust....

it is a very inefficient device.... but works....

all you are seeing at the back end? is "exhaust"
It's life as we know it, but only just.
My Fukushima Site:
[link to citizenperth.wordpress.com]
sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie

GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links
twitter: #citizenperth
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
- Albert Einstein
Hiram's Apprentice

User ID: 45869531
United States
03/16/2019 06:54 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Good stuff OP. Near 10 pages and no one is touching your claims. Only shills with nasa videos

bump
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77441735


...that's refreshing to see...down to Earth, hard hitting facts...NOT! Phone service in the middle of the Atlantic, weather satellite photos, GPS in the middle of nowhere....ICBMs. OP is running on ignorance and lack of interest in spaceflight...probable a chemtrail shill as well. Ignorance is bliss...he doesn't know anything about spaceflight, and doesn't care...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622


Op's mother should have stopped him from eating those paint chips off the window sill when he was a child.

OP is missing a VERY elementary fact of physics--- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction aka THRUST. There does not need to be an atmosphere to push against when expanding gasses are being ejected from a nozzle.
"... Shall not be infringed."
Notice the period at the end? It means END OF CONVERSATION!
New Atlantis

User ID: 66340061
United States
03/16/2019 06:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
NASA is still around??
"What you think, you become." - Buddha
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 37509171
Greece
03/16/2019 07:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Not again that idiot who doesn't know what to substitute and doesn't know how to get units out of an equation (in a previous video he was including pi and constants in the units results which is totally wrong when you try to get units out of an equation). BTW "NASA thrust equation" isn't NASA's to begin with...

The definition of force is that it is equal to the change in momentum thus

F=dP/dt where P=m*u (mass times velosity)

and since we have change in mass and in speed we use the differentiation product rule, thus

F=dP/dt=d(m*u)/dt=u*dm/dt+m*du/dt

the thrust is the part of the force created by the rate of change of the mass

Ft=u*dm/dt

Even when substituting as per the video, the final units are as expected Kg*m/sec^2. That guy obviously is using some equation tables without actually grasping the real meaning of these (he for example used equations for a cylindrical pipe, not a more generic equation like A for area with units m^2 or V for volume with units m^3, another sign that he is not that of a knowledgeable person). He ignores conservation of momentum in a system and he is using a flawed example to prove nothing but his ignorance.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19126618
United States
03/16/2019 07:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Absolute :bs2:.
 Quoting: Hungdaddy69 70390093


you can't bs math
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76708078


what are the dots of light going over at night, matching the sighting guides for various satellites/space stations...and can be seen from widely separated viewing sites 100 miles away at the same time (at a different angle, of course)?

you can't bs orbital mechanics either...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622


You have such a limited mind. This is most people's problem, they can't even fathom things in their head that are outside mainstream explanations. It's as if everything Must line up with the mainstream explanations or they aren't real. We live in the twilight zone, Every one is sick slow n stupid but thinks they're healthy fast n smart.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19126618
United States
03/16/2019 07:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Not again that idiot who doesn't know what to substitute and doesn't know how to get units out of an equation (in a previous video he was including pi and constants in the units results which is totally wrong when you try to get units out of an equation). BTW "NASA thrust equation" isn't NASA's to begin with...

The definition of force is that it is equal to the change in momentum thus

F=dP/dt where P=m*u (mass times velosity)

and since we have change in mass and in speed we use the differentiation product rule, thus

F=dP/dt=d(m*u)/dt=u*dm/dt+m*du/dt

the thrust is the part of the force created by the rate of change of the mass

Ft=u*dm/dt

Even when substituting as per the video, the final units are as expected Kg*m/sec^2. That guy obviously is using some equation tables without actually grasping the real meaning of these (he for example used equations for a cylindrical pipe, not a more generic equation like A for area with units m^2 or V for volume with units m^3, another sign that he is not that of a knowledgeable person). He ignores conservation of momentum in a system and he is using a flawed example to prove nothing but his ignorance.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171

You seem Perty smart. I hope you use that intelligence to help advance humanity as a whole, and don't get bought out to just work for some meaningless company as so many intelligent people do.... we need more smart people working on new fresh ideas for humanity instead of fueling the same ol system that keeps us all oppressed and keeps real advancements hidden from the masses...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77441821
Greece
03/16/2019 07:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Not again that idiot who doesn't know what to substitute and doesn't know how to get units out of an equation (in a previous video he was including pi and constants in the units results which is totally wrong when you try to get units out of an equation). BTW "NASA thrust equation" isn't NASA's to begin with...

The definition of force is that it is equal to the change in momentum thus

F=dP/dt where P=m*u (mass times velosity)

and since we have change in mass and in speed we use the differentiation product rule, thus

F=dP/dt=d(m*u)/dt=u*dm/dt+m*du/dt

the thrust is the part of the force created by the rate of change of the mass

Ft=u*dm/dt

Even when substituting as per the video, the final units are as expected Kg*m/sec^2. That guy obviously is using some equation tables without actually grasping the real meaning of these (he for example used equations for a cylindrical pipe, not a more generic equation like A for area with units m^2 or V for volume with units m^3, another sign that he is not that of a knowledgeable person). He ignores conservation of momentum in a system and he is using a flawed example to prove nothing but his ignorance.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171


Would you point out the exact error? The equation is on NASA website So they promote it.

I didn’t say anything about the units. The units are fine. There’s nothing wrong with the substitution. The velocity in the nozzle pipe is equal to the exit velocity. It’s simple.

The conservation of momentum is conserved because the external force is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 37509171
Greece
03/16/2019 08:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Not again that idiot who doesn't know what to substitute and doesn't know how to get units out of an equation (in a previous video he was including pi and constants in the units results which is totally wrong when you try to get units out of an equation). BTW "NASA thrust equation" isn't NASA's to begin with...

The definition of force is that it is equal to the change in momentum thus

F=dP/dt where P=m*u (mass times velosity)

and since we have change in mass and in speed we use the differentiation product rule, thus

F=dP/dt=d(m*u)/dt=u*dm/dt+m*du/dt

the thrust is the part of the force created by the rate of change of the mass

Ft=u*dm/dt

Even when substituting as per the video, the final units are as expected Kg*m/sec^2. That guy obviously is using some equation tables without actually grasping the real meaning of these (he for example used equations for a cylindrical pipe, not a more generic equation like A for area with units m^2 or V for volume with units m^3, another sign that he is not that of a knowledgeable person). He ignores conservation of momentum in a system and he is using a flawed example to prove nothing but his ignorance.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171


Would you point out the exact error? The equation is on NASA website So they promote it.

I didn’t say anything about the units. The units are fine. There’s nothing wrong with the substitution. The velocity in the nozzle pipe is equal to the exit velocity. It’s simple.

The conservation of momentum is conserved because the external force is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77441821


First of all, mass change rate is dm/dt (with dot notation in the equation). He states that force equals mass flow rate. Actually we would say that the thrust force is proportional to the square of the rate of change of mass. He, by ignorance or intention, ignores the rest of the parameters. What the equation says is that the cause of the thrust force is the change of the mass of the system with respect to time. As for the rocket, the fuel is part of the mass of the system that comprises of the rocket. When the fuel combusts in the combustion chamber of the rocket, it creates high pressure and temperature and thus the produced gases try to expand (see entropy) as would one expect with the only option to do that by the nozzle. This mass that leaves was part of the mass of the rocket, unlike the air sucked from the vacuum cleaner of the "experiment" since in that case the system "vacuum cleaner and pipe" have a zero net mass change (it doesn't matter if it sucks air from a small or big hole) since whatever air is sucked in, gets out of the filter of the vacuum cleaner, thus dm/dt=0 and in accordance F_thrust=0.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72942955
United States
03/16/2019 08:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
There are plenty of experiments that show combustion does not work in a vacuum, even with things that have their own oxidizer.
Those talking with out researching it or trying it themselves in a vacuum chamber are just that, talk.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77456542
Canada
03/16/2019 08:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Not again that idiot who doesn't know what to substitute and doesn't know how to get units out of an equation (in a previous video he was including pi and constants in the units results which is totally wrong when you try to get units out of an equation). BTW "NASA thrust equation" isn't NASA's to begin with...

The definition of force is that it is equal to the change in momentum thus

F=dP/dt where P=m*u (mass times velosity)

and since we have change in mass and in speed we use the differentiation product rule, thus

F=dP/dt=d(m*u)/dt=u*dm/dt+m*du/dt

the thrust is the part of the force created by the rate of change of the mass

Ft=u*dm/dt

Even when substituting as per the video, the final units are as expected Kg*m/sec^2. That guy obviously is using some equation tables without actually grasping the real meaning of these (he for example used equations for a cylindrical pipe, not a more generic equation like A for area with units m^2 or V for volume with units m^3, another sign that he is not that of a knowledgeable person). He ignores conservation of momentum in a system and he is using a flawed example to prove nothing but his ignorance.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171


Would you point out the exact error? The equation is on NASA website So they promote it.

I didn’t say anything about the units. The units are fine. There’s nothing wrong with the substitution. The velocity in the nozzle pipe is equal to the exit velocity. It’s simple.

The conservation of momentum is conserved because the external force is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77441821


First of all, mass change rate is dm/dt (with dot notation in the equation). He states that force equals mass flow rate. Actually we would say that the thrust force is proportional to the square of the rate of change of mass. He, by ignorance or intention, ignores the rest of the parameters. What the equation says is that the cause of the thrust force is the change of the mass of the system with respect to time. As for the rocket, the fuel is part of the mass of the system that comprises of the rocket. When the fuel combusts in the combustion chamber of the rocket, it creates high pressure and temperature and thus the produced gases try to expand (see entropy) as would one expect with the only option to do that by the nozzle. This mass that leaves was part of the mass of the rocket, unlike the air sucked from the vacuum cleaner of the "experiment" since in that case the system "vacuum cleaner and pipe" have a zero net mass change (it doesn't matter if it sucks air from a small or big hole) since whatever air is sucked in, gets out of the filter of the vacuum cleaner, thus dm/dt=0 and in accordance F_thrust=0.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171

The equation startes that mass flow rate exiting a pipe causes force. Using the vacuum, you have mass flow rate exiting the pipe, but no force is observed. You have no evidence of what you say
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76354975
United States
03/16/2019 08:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
there's a black hole in your logic
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 37509171
Greece
03/16/2019 08:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Not again that idiot who doesn't know what to substitute and doesn't know how to get units out of an equation (in a previous video he was including pi and constants in the units results which is totally wrong when you try to get units out of an equation). BTW "NASA thrust equation" isn't NASA's to begin with...

The definition of force is that it is equal to the change in momentum thus

F=dP/dt where P=m*u (mass times velosity)

and since we have change in mass and in speed we use the differentiation product rule, thus

F=dP/dt=d(m*u)/dt=u*dm/dt+m*du/dt

the thrust is the part of the force created by the rate of change of the mass

Ft=u*dm/dt

Even when substituting as per the video, the final units are as expected Kg*m/sec^2. That guy obviously is using some equation tables without actually grasping the real meaning of these (he for example used equations for a cylindrical pipe, not a more generic equation like A for area with units m^2 or V for volume with units m^3, another sign that he is not that of a knowledgeable person). He ignores conservation of momentum in a system and he is using a flawed example to prove nothing but his ignorance.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171


Would you point out the exact error? The equation is on NASA website So they promote it.

I didn’t say anything about the units. The units are fine. There’s nothing wrong with the substitution. The velocity in the nozzle pipe is equal to the exit velocity. It’s simple.

The conservation of momentum is conserved because the external force is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77441821


First of all, mass change rate is dm/dt (with dot notation in the equation). He states that force equals mass flow rate. Actually we would say that the thrust force is proportional to the square of the rate of change of mass. He, by ignorance or intention, ignores the rest of the parameters. What the equation says is that the cause of the thrust force is the change of the mass of the system with respect to time. As for the rocket, the fuel is part of the mass of the system that comprises of the rocket. When the fuel combusts in the combustion chamber of the rocket, it creates high pressure and temperature and thus the produced gases try to expand (see entropy) as would one expect with the only option to do that by the nozzle. This mass that leaves was part of the mass of the rocket, unlike the air sucked from the vacuum cleaner of the "experiment" since in that case the system "vacuum cleaner and pipe" have a zero net mass change (it doesn't matter if it sucks air from a small or big hole) since whatever air is sucked in, gets out of the filter of the vacuum cleaner, thus dm/dt=0 and in accordance F_thrust=0.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171

The equation startes that mass flow rate exiting a pipe causes force. Using the vacuum, you have mass flow rate exiting the pipe, but no force is observed. You have no evidence of what you say
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542


When the gases are forcibly expanding, the molecules of it actually collide to the walls of the combustion chamber thus losing kinetic energy that passes to the mass of the rocket (some part of it as kinetic and some as thermal) and of course they collide with each other in a random fashion, but eventually the net flow will be out of the exhaust, thus to the macroscopic level that would be a net force in the direction opposite of the exhaust. The net gained kinetic energy (see transfer of momentum aka collision of masses with velocities) will cause an acceleration with direction going to the opposite side of the exhaust, since the mass of the combusted gas will actually leave from there, it likes it or not, there is no other way out of that high pressure. This is also why you need to actually know the speed of the gas in the exhaust, due to the thermal loses. It's not a perfect machine, there are thermal loses in every kind of system. The equation is not wrong and there IS a force (the net force exerted by the molecules to the chamber wall opposite of the exhaust).
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/16/2019 10:01 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
...


I can also see ISS in the "blue sky" but that doesn't mean it's not in space.

It most certainly is in space, which is a fact I've verified myself.

It does not follow that just because something is visible "in the blue sky" that it means it must not be in space. The moon, sun and Venus can all be seen by naked eye in broad daylight. What, did you expect the blue sky to turn black as it went into space? That only happens from the perspective of the rocket, not a ground observer watching it!
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


ISS just a projector mounted on a plane.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 42079668


Wrong.

 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


bsflag
ISS is fake
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77468786

Assertion without evidence. I have provided evidence and you have nothing to refute it. You are dismissed.
astrobanner2
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/16/2019 10:04 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
Surprised Asstro hasn’t deleted this entire thread.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77469576


Maybe he thinks people still believe his cartoon video.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77449138


It's not a cartoon and people do believe it which is why it has way more upvotes than downvotes. You guys should really fire up those downvote bots like you usually do for my live streams. I know for a fact my footage is not fake and neither are my measurements which have shown conclusively that the space station is as high as fast and as large as NASA says it is. That rules out any plane balloon or other aerial object.
astrobanner2
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/16/2019 10:05 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
There are plenty of experiments that show combustion does not work in a vacuum, even with things that have their own oxidizer.
Those talking with out researching it or trying it themselves in a vacuum chamber are just that, talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72942955


Wrong.
No I explained exactly why they are are false. Does a rocket in space push off a bullet or a metalframe?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77003244


No metal frame, no apparatus at all, just a rocket working in space:

Measurements made from the video indicate that the booster is above the Karman line and in space during the boostback burn. My telescope has an altitude dial on the side which was previously recorded using a gopro during launch. From my launch viewing site, the telescope is angled up about 40 degrees above the horizon during the boostback burn. This sped-up video is zoomed in the altitude dial, apologies the resolution isn't good enough to read the numbers but you can see where the numbers are marked and they're in 10 degree increments, the video starts at launch (0 degrees) and ends at the end of the boostback burn (40 degrees):
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
At launch the Falcon boosters are about 22 pixels wide in my camera:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
I'm 21.1 km from the launch site and the boosters are each 3.7 meters wide, so that corresponds to an angular size of 0.01 degrees. By the end of the boostback they're only about 3.2 pixels wide:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
Given that we know from the launch that a 3.7 meter wide booster is 22 pixels wide in the view from 21.1 km, that means a pixel size of 3.2 pixels corresponds to an angular size of about 0.00146 degrees. The range between my telescope and the booster is therefore about 145 km at that time. Given that it's about 40 degrees above the horizon, then even if we assume a flat earth the altitude above the ground of the booster was roughly 122 km. Let's be generous here and say I could be about 5 degrees off on either side of that 40 degree measurement. Even at 35 degrees above the horizon the altitude (even assuming a flat earth) would be 102 km. At 45 degrees it would of course be 145 km above the earth. So it was somewhere between about 102 - 145 km in altitude, above the Karman line and in space. My video indicates it had no trouble reversing course to come back and land near the launch site. Please show your evidence that the video indicates it was not in space.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut

astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77418720
Canada
03/16/2019 03:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
...


Would you point out the exact error? The equation is on NASA website So they promote it.

I didn’t say anything about the units. The units are fine. There’s nothing wrong with the substitution. The velocity in the nozzle pipe is equal to the exit velocity. It’s simple.

The conservation of momentum is conserved because the external force is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77441821


First of all, mass change rate is dm/dt (with dot notation in the equation). He states that force equals mass flow rate. Actually we would say that the thrust force is proportional to the square of the rate of change of mass. He, by ignorance or intention, ignores the rest of the parameters. What the equation says is that the cause of the thrust force is the change of the mass of the system with respect to time. As for the rocket, the fuel is part of the mass of the system that comprises of the rocket. When the fuel combusts in the combustion chamber of the rocket, it creates high pressure and temperature and thus the produced gases try to expand (see entropy) as would one expect with the only option to do that by the nozzle. This mass that leaves was part of the mass of the rocket, unlike the air sucked from the vacuum cleaner of the "experiment" since in that case the system "vacuum cleaner and pipe" have a zero net mass change (it doesn't matter if it sucks air from a small or big hole) since whatever air is sucked in, gets out of the filter of the vacuum cleaner, thus dm/dt=0 and in accordance F_thrust=0.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171

The equation startes that mass flow rate exiting a pipe causes force. Using the vacuum, you have mass flow rate exiting the pipe, but no force is observed. You have no evidence of what you say
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542


When the gases are forcibly expanding, the molecules of it actually collide to the walls of the combustion chamber thus losing kinetic energy that passes to the mass of the rocket (some part of it as kinetic and some as thermal) and of course they collide with each other in a random fashion, but eventually the net flow will be out of the exhaust, thus to the macroscopic level that would be a net force in the direction opposite of the exhaust. The net gained kinetic energy (see transfer of momentum aka collision of masses with velocities) will cause an acceleration with direction going to the opposite side of the exhaust, since the mass of the combusted gas will actually leave from there, it likes it or not, there is no other way out of that high pressure. This is also why you need to actually know the speed of the gas in the exhaust, due to the thermal loses. It's not a perfect machine, there are thermal loses in every kind of system. The equation is not wrong and there IS a force (the net force exerted by the molecules to the chamber wall opposite of the exhaust).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37509171


Macroscopicly it would be like soccer balls tied in a net. Those who’ve played soccer know what I’m talking about. Then net is held up by the force of the balls. As soon as you untie the net, the balls fall out and the net collapses. No opposite force.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77418720
Canada
03/16/2019 03:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.
There are plenty of experiments that show combustion does not work in a vacuum, even with things that have their own oxidizer.
Those talking with out researching it or trying it themselves in a vacuum chamber are just that, talk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72942955


Wrong.
No I explained exactly why they are are false. Does a rocket in space push off a bullet or a metalframe?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77003244


No metal frame, no apparatus at all, just a rocket working in space:

Measurements made from the video indicate that the booster is above the Karman line and in space during the boostback burn. My telescope has an altitude dial on the side which was previously recorded using a gopro during launch. From my launch viewing site, the telescope is angled up about 40 degrees above the horizon during the boostback burn. This sped-up video is zoomed in the altitude dial, apologies the resolution isn't good enough to read the numbers but you can see where the numbers are marked and they're in 10 degree increments, the video starts at launch (0 degrees) and ends at the end of the boostback burn (40 degrees):
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
At launch the Falcon boosters are about 22 pixels wide in my camera:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
I'm 21.1 km from the launch site and the boosters are each 3.7 meters wide, so that corresponds to an angular size of 0.01 degrees. By the end of the boostback they're only about 3.2 pixels wide:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
Given that we know from the launch that a 3.7 meter wide booster is 22 pixels wide in the view from 21.1 km, that means a pixel size of 3.2 pixels corresponds to an angular size of about 0.00146 degrees. The range between my telescope and the booster is therefore about 145 km at that time. Given that it's about 40 degrees above the horizon, then even if we assume a flat earth the altitude above the ground of the booster was roughly 122 km. Let's be generous here and say I could be about 5 degrees off on either side of that 40 degree measurement. Even at 35 degrees above the horizon the altitude (even assuming a flat earth) would be 102 km. At 45 degrees it would of course be 145 km above the earth. So it was somewhere between about 102 - 145 km in altitude, above the Karman line and in space. My video indicates it had no trouble reversing course to come back and land near the launch site. Please show your evidence that the video indicates it was not in space.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut

 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


How do I know all the footage was contemporaneous?