NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed.

ISS is fake

Because vacuum is low pressure. There is low pressure in the vacuum hose.

Because vacuum is low pressure. There is low pressure in the vacuum hose.

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.

Surprised Asstro hasn’t deleted this entire thread.

Great work OP. You can tell you are on the right track because the shills immediately attacked you. Keep it up man!

Maybe he thinks people still believe his cartoon video.

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

Still can’t bs math

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

it IS rocket science.

...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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

ISS is fake

Maybe he thinks people still believe his cartoon video.

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.

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.

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).

Wrong.

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.