Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
against.
Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.
Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
create propulsion in the first place.
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
> itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
> nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
> into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
> propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
> create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
> cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
> lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
> against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
> pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
> one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
> physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
> because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
> momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.
> Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
> motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
> ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
> etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
> indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
> rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
> How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
> sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
> causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
> something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
> MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
> about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
> create propulsion in the first place.
> You have to question things to move forward.
Tell you what, lets send you into space, fill your lungs up to the max
with the vapour of your choice and release you. We could all watch if
you accelerated in any particular direction and for how long.
On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You have to question things to move forward.
> To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> Rockets can provide thrust.
> Rockets work.
> Your brain doesn't.
ITS FAKE!
:)
prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
conclusions wrong...
People's minds operate in a belief systems construct. (Religion is -
or can be - one of them). So basically it's an integrated (belief)
system of "religions"; some based on supernatural, and the rest on the
physical and political world.
Once formulated, 99.9% of people are unable (and unwilling) to change
their belief dogmas, be it religious, scientific or political, in the
face of ANY data or proof to the contrary.
This makes "science" just a form of religion with immutable tenets and
dogmas.
The 0.1% of us who constantly modify our world construct based on new
facts and information are essentially treated a pariahs.
I personally have been accused many times that "You have said and
believed this-or-that last year, or whenever; why do you profess a
different opinion/belief now?" When I try to explain that I have new
info and facts which puts that very subject in a very different light
and explanation, I'm sill(!) accused of "dishonesty"(!), because "you
said that then, and you you're saying this now".
Apparently, with most people (which I don't understand) once they lock
into a belief system, it becomes a dogma, from which deviation is
heresy, regardless of new info or (new) proof of its utter falsehood.
Basically people are robotic, intellectuallly dishonest, narrowminded
and literally stupid for the most - in spite of their education,
degrees, etc.
Scientists are worse than fundamentalist fanatics when it comes to
accepting
changes no matter how slight the changes may be,
No scientist wants to be seen as less fanatic than any of the others
in the flock. And the flock of bleating
sheep will viciously turn against any one of their own who utters an
unsanctioned word.
Some times the tables get turned on them and then they pretend to not
notice. Immanuel Velikovsky
comes to mind as an example of standing his ground and not caving in
to the naysayers.
As for the thick headed carved in stone types who cannot deal with new
circumstances or facts, we have
one on here who wants to be the Adolph Hitler of the groups and
enforce rigid thinking habits on everyone
else.
All he (she) is accomplishing is to chase people away. What will be
left after the PC cop gets the free thinkers weeded out?
On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > gas propel it?
> If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
years
I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum... ha
ha ha.... Learn to understand what you read people... since thats is a
clear problem here...
Facts is in vacuum the laws of newton like they have learned you have
no effect... and you may try to defend the lie as much as you want,
but that won't never change the facts....,
My words are very simple words you known, Rockets can't fly in
vacuum....
And for the cowards who snip the groups... is that because you don't
have any answer to share? The same reason why they delete my reply s
and thread in any moderated forum...James Randi forum is another one
of those forums on which pro-NASA moderators use their power to
control the direction debates take. That was blatant censorship. The
moderators are trying to keep the discussions inside the box so people
will keep thinking inside the box.
But to give answer to question, that they can not... Let us hide the
truth and pretend as if it doesn't exist... well you ain't lucky I am
already following like a ghost you cowards with my remarks, 9 years
now and I don't even remember the quantity of topics on the many
subject... with no reply, than attacking the messenger... with words
of liars, and cowards, and collaborators and traitors... Are these the
words of the great of the nations, the all powerful boards and
syndicates of the Earth?
On Mar 30, 3:53 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > > gas propel it?
> > If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
> years
> I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum...
Yes, fire enough gas out of a cow's rear end and it will fly in space
too.
The gas will go out and push the other mass in the opposite direction,
the same way a rifle will push against your shoulder when you fire a
shot from it.
The main thing about space is that aerodynamics don't apply in the
vacuum. No wings needed, nor will they work as in an atmosphere.
Control surfaces are out and thrust must be used to maneuver the
craft.
On Friday, March 30, 2012 11:51:04 AM UTC-7, Warhol wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
> ITS FAKE!
> :)
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> On Mar 30, 9:36 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
> > > ITS FAKE!
> > Agreed. Your brain is a fake....
> spent a bit of time there to debunk a 'idiotic theory' didn't you, why
> would that be?
Because your "reasoning" is so risable as to neither require nor
deserve detailed refutation - merely mockery, and then only when I
feel so inclined. Society has progressed to a state where it is
unacceptable to throw stale buns at drooling village idiots, but
fortunately usenet has provided those of us so inclined with an
equvalent...
On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > against in space?
> Front of the engine.
NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.
First to begin, let me correct your comment.
1) We are dealing in space not earth.
2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting
burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.
So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of
propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to
relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is
not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball).
Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still
subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.
A vacuum however, will aid (I don't like to say suck) the gas in it's
escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the
chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket
forward. Hence the rocket concept will not work in the vacuum of space
and fall back down to earth.
lol
they're not in space!
same as the 'space' shuttle lol
and still nobody has presented a video of rocket providing thrust in a
vacuum? hmmm why is that?
lol, take here a deep breath sonny...
Until any of you tards put together a vacuum chamber and prove that a
small rocket will produce thrust in said vacuum chamber, STFU.
rocket on wheels on runway, lightweight huge vacuum chamber attached
to rocket exhaust, vacuum chamber doesn't blow up or cause any extra
resistance to the rocket, rocket is fired, does the rocket still move
forward? your science says YES, me says NO.
Firstly the rocket isn't throwing anything. It is the expansion of
gases in a chamber looking for a way out to further expand in order to
equalise in pressure with the outside environment in order to create
thrust.
All is done is the fuel is ignited and the rest takes place on it's
own. with the carefully calculated design of the nozzle thrust is
achieved. In the example you have drawn, it is the same as if we say
the rocket pushes the gas out but in fact the gas escapes through the
relatively small nozzle via it's own expansion in the chamber.
But in a vacuum this gas will be aided (again I don't like to say
suck) out of the chamber by the negative force (vacuum) acting on the
gas.
How ever you and every other person that backs this theory needs to
prove your claims that rockets will work in the vacuum of space. As
far as physics is concerned it will not work.
> On Mar 30, 9:14 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:36 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
> > > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > > Rockets work.
> > > > > Your brain doesn't.
> > > > ITS FAKE!
> > > Agreed. Your brain is a fake....
> > spent a bit of time there to debunk a 'idiotic theory' didn't you, why
> > would that be?
> Because your "reasoning" is so risable as to neither require nor
> deserve detailed refutation - merely mockery, and then only when I
> feel so inclined. Society has progressed to a state where it is
> unacceptable to throw stale buns at drooling village idiots, but
> fortunately usenet has provided those of us so inclined with an
> equvalent...
why don't people think anymore? they just spout what they are told an
have a belief that that is true.
> On Mar 30, 3:53 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > > > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > > > gas propel it?
> > > If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
> > years
> > I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum...
> Yes, fire enough gas out of a cow's rear end and it will fly in space
> too.
> The gas will go out and push the other mass in the opposite direction,
> the same way a rifle will push against your shoulder when you fire a
> shot from it.
> The main thing about space is that aerodynamics don't apply in the
> vacuum. No wings needed, nor will they work as in an atmosphere.
> Control surfaces are out and thrust must be used to maneuver the
> craft.
On Mar 30, 3:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket.
Never happens.
> It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum.
Lie. The "weightlessness" has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuums
or lack thereof.
> It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
Lie.
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it?
Newton's laws of motion.
Go get an education, then think about posting your cluelessness in the
news groups - especially the atheist ones where our regulars are
sharper than usual.
[Rest snipped before i bust a gut laughing]
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 1:35 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > > against in space?
> > > Front of the engine.
> > NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> You are a fucking idiot. How `bout we put you in a vacuum chamber,
> shove an Estes D12-5 up your ass, and start it.
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
Why? Because its takes physics to fly on earth?
What's the physics of orbit? Nothing?
You can't have physics in a vacuum.
You can't have an object interacting with nothing.
not wading through the pages of shill-fest (they come out of the
woodwork for anything nasa-related)
but did anyone come up with a video of rocket propulsion working in a
vacuum? that would be a worthwhile experiment to try and document,
wouldn't it?
Why is NASA even pretending to orbit SPACE? -- You can't fly or remain
aloft in a vacuum. Why? Why the pathetic comedy?
> On Mar 30, 3:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> > since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> > stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket.
> Never happens.
> > It's weight is
> > null because it is in a vacuum.
> Lie. The "weightlessness" has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuums
> or lack thereof.
> > It has no resistance to anything. When
> > you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> > on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> > wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> > rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> > against.
> Lie.
> > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > gas propel it?
> Newton's laws of motion.
> Go get an education, then think about posting your cluelessness in the
> news groups - especially the atheist ones where our regulars are
> sharper than usual.
> [Rest snipped before i bust a gut laughing]
> Budikka
Moors like Warhol were not only home-schooled or rather cave-schooled,
but obviously self-taught. It's one of the main reasons why they've
never had to pay any taxes.
On Mar 31, 6:42 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> why don't people think anymore?
They do. It's just that for anyone with rational thought processes,
they won't come up with anything like your "truth".
Your statement in your initial post that Inertia doesn't exist in
space proves attempting a reasoned arguement would be fruitless.
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 1:35 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > > against in space?
> > > Front of the engine.
> > NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> You are a fucking idiot. How `bout we put you in a vacuum chamber,
> shove an Estes D12-5 up your ass, and start it.
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
0 - 30 Newtons thrust in under 0.30 seconds. That's roughly
equivalent to kicking his ass with a 66 lb boot.
> On Mar 31, 2:04 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
> <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 1:35 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > > > against in space?
> > > > Front of the engine.
> > > NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> > You are a fucking idiot. How `bout we put you in a vacuum chamber,
> > shove an Estes D12-5 up your ass, and start it.
> 0 - 30 Newtons thrust in under 0.30 seconds. That's roughly
> equivalent to kicking his ass with a 66 lb boot.
That may not be big enough to give this little jailhouse bitch the
kick in the ass he deserves..but I'm lazy. I did qualify L1 on an H or
something here in the US, but that was with a reloadable. Had to
borrow a casing and assemble the motor (and do the math to determine
the delay/ejection charge) m'self! I've turned into one of those guys
who just builds clones of Estes/Centuri kits. Can't beat just walking
into the hobby shop & buying a motor to do the deed. Like Stein/Estes/
Carlisle said 60yrs ago, the model airplane guys don't have to build
their motors...<bfg>
> On Mar 31, 8:01 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 2:04 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
> > <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 1:35 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > > > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > > > > against in space?
> > > > > Front of the engine.
> > > > NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> > > You are a fucking idiot. How `bout we put you in a vacuum chamber,
> > > shove an Estes D12-5 up your ass, and start it.
> > 0 - 30 Newtons thrust in under 0.30 seconds. That's roughly
> > equivalent to kicking his ass with a 66 lb boot.
> That may not be big enough to give this little jailhouse bitch the
> kick in the ass he deserves..but I'm lazy. I did qualify L1 on an H or
> something here in the US, but that was with a reloadable. Had to
> borrow a casing and assemble the motor (and do the math to determine
> the delay/ejection charge) m'self! I've turned into one of those guys
> who just builds clones of Estes/Centuri kits. Can't beat just walking
> into the hobby shop & buying a motor to do the deed. Like Stein/Estes/
> Carlisle said 60yrs ago, the model airplane guys don't have to build
> their motors...<bfg>
> -PF, Atl.
> #2015/KoBAAWA!
The smell of a burnt out Estes motor was the smell of my childhood.
