|
|
Post by papa legba on Jun 16, 2015 19:25:13 GMT
Scroll up to the post by myself 4 above yours, doofus.
Read it.
Understand how it smashes your stupid false analogy.
Go away.
Try again.
Boy! You NASA trolls just won't give up on your utterly lame & crappy false analogies without a fight, will you?
|
|
|
|
Post by nj_guest on Jun 17, 2015 2:53:37 GMT
Scroll up to the post by myself 4 above yours, doofus. Read it. Ok, I read it - you say the laws of physics won't allow a rocket to function in a vacuum.
I'm wondering which laws you mean. Please be specific - no need to use layman's terms with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by nj_guest on Jun 17, 2015 3:05:54 GMT
Boy! You NASA trolls just won't give up on your utterly lame & crappy false analogies without a fight, will you? I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I work for, or am in any way associated with NASA...
The information that I shared can be corroborated by any number of non-NASA related sources.
I wonder, along with what laws you think are preventing thrust from functioning in space, what exactly is invalid about the demonstration I suggested.
|
|
|
|
Post by papa legba on Jun 18, 2015 18:57:01 GMT
Well, I already explained EXACTLY what is wrong with your FALSE ANALOGY, as well as what laws of physics rocketry in a vacuum violates; you'd know this if you'd read the thread.
But whatever; go ahead; get the last word in, if that makes you feel like you've 'won', or whatever it is you need from being here...
|
|
|
|
Post by Buzz Cauldron on Jul 24, 2015 22:50:03 GMT
In an atmosphere a rocket 'thrusts', in a vacuum a rocket 'leaks'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 6, 2015 11:38:22 GMT
LOL the sun will run away from us. If rockets work in a vacuum the sun should move every time there is a CME in the opposite direction of the CME.
|
|
|
|
Post by glassman on Sept 16, 2015 3:15:10 GMT
I wonder if there is a way to make a simple vacuum chamber and put a bottle rocket in it. That would solve alot of problems
|
|
|
|
Post by ben on Nov 12, 2015 19:31:39 GMT
Rockets in space must comply to newtons third law that states :
For every action there is an equale and opesite reaction DEPENDING on resistance.
everybody always forgets the most importent part of newtons third law.
When resistance is zero the reaction force will also become zero.
no reaction force, no thrust in space, no rocket propulsion.
Bullets in space, in a vacuum, might provide more propulsion then a billion dollar rocket engine because there is the resistance of friction from the bullet when travelling thru the barrel, thus always a recoil, always a opesite reaction force so propulsion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blurred Vision on Dec 9, 2015 22:38:17 GMT
I would like to thank sceptimatic for taking the time to explain, in layman terms, why rocketry will not work in a vacuum. I have only just come across this thread and I found it very enlightening. I have recently been questioning the (false) reality we have been spoon fed since we were children.
I could clearly see that the moon landing was a hoax especially after I visited the Kennedy Space Centre and saw the Lunar Module (made of what looked like scaffolding poles and bacofoil) in 1997.
I realise that the only reason people started accepting that the earth was a sphere was because of the "photograph" of it from "space". The "moon landings" took place before I was born, so by the time I began attending school the teachers endlessly repeated the same mantra "people used to think the earth was flat, but now we know its a round". We tend not to question things as children. As we become adults we have other things we would rather focus on.
I understand that 9.81m/s^2 is the approximate acceleration with which (denser than air) objects fall to the ground through air. Gravity (force) needs to be introduced in order to support the rotating sphere model of the earth to explain why we dont all just fall/drift/get flung away from it.
It seems almost everything has been a big fat lie. I no longer know what shape the earth is. I no longer believe planets exist. I do not think that stars are ginormous balls of gas millions of light years away. What is the sun and how far is it? What is the moon and how far is it? etc, etc. This list goes on and on.
I recently discovered that the true meaning of the word "apocalypse" is unveiling of the truth.
Once again sceptimatic, thank you for your posts. They were invaluable.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Dec 14, 2015 9:28:32 GMT
I would like to thank sceptimatic for taking the time to explain, in layman terms, why rocketry will not work in a vacuum. I have only just come across this thread and I found it very enlightening. I have recently been questioning the (false) reality we have been spoon fed since we were children. I could clearly see that the moon landing was a hoax especially after I visited the Kennedy Space Centre and saw the Lunar Module (made of what looked like scaffolding poles and bacofoil) in 1997. I realise that the only reason people started accepting that the earth was a sphere was because of the "photograph" of it from "space". The "moon landings" took place before I was born, so by the time I began attending school the teachers endlessly repeated the same mantra "people used to think the earth was flat, but now we know its a round". We tend not to question things as children. As we become adults we have other things we would rather focus on. I understand that 9.81m/s^2 is the approximate acceleration with which (denser than air) objects fall to the ground through air. Gravity (force) needs to be introduced in order to support the rotating sphere model of the earth to explain why we dont all just fall/drift/get flung away from it. It seems almost everything has been a big fat lie. I no longer know what shape the earth is. I no longer believe planets exist. I do not think that stars are ginormous balls of gas millions of light years away. What is the sun and how far is it? What is the moon and how far is it? etc, etc. This list goes on and on. I recently discovered that the true meaning of the word "apocalypse" is unveiling of the truth. Once again sceptimatic, thank you for your posts. They were invaluable. "It seems almost everything has been a big fat lie. I no longer know what shape the earth is. I no longer believe planets exist. I do not think that stars are ginormous balls of gas millions of light years away. What is the sun and how far is it? What is the moon and how far is it? etc, etc. This list goes on and on." Yeah, but saying the Earth is flat, because NASA lied about space is not very logical. How do we explain a photo like this?:  Most flat Earthers would give this as an example that the Earth is flat, when it clearly shows the opposite unless there is another weird mechanism at work here(which no one bothered to explain). The idea that a visible curvature proves flatness is pretty much analogous to saying that the Sun is a triangle, because you see it round. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike H on Dec 16, 2015 6:48:39 GMT
I would like to thank sceptimatic for taking the time to explain, in layman terms, why rocketry will not work in a vacuum. I have only just come across this thread and I found it very enlightening. I have recently been questioning the (false) reality we have been spoon fed since we were children. I could clearly see that the moon landing was a hoax especially after I visited the Kennedy Space Centre and saw the Lunar Module (made of what looked like scaffolding poles and bacofoil) in 1997. I realise that the only reason people started accepting that the earth was a sphere was because of the "photograph" of it from "space". The "moon landings" took place before I was born, so by the time I began attending school the teachers endlessly repeated the same mantra "people used to think the earth was flat, but now we know its a round". We tend not to question things as children. As we become adults we have other things we would rather focus on. I understand that 9.81m/s^2 is the approximate acceleration with which (denser than air) objects fall to the ground through air. Gravity (force) needs to be introduced in order to support the rotating sphere model of the earth to explain why we dont all just fall/drift/get flung away from it. It seems almost everything has been a big fat lie. I no longer know what shape the earth is. I no longer believe planets exist. I do not think that stars are ginormous balls of gas millions of light years away. What is the sun and how far is it? What is the moon and how far is it? etc, etc. This list goes on and on. I recently discovered that the true meaning of the word "apocalypse" is unveiling of the truth. Once again sceptimatic, thank you for your posts. They were invaluable. "It seems almost everything has been a big fat lie. I no longer know what shape the earth is. I no longer believe planets exist. I do not think that stars are ginormous balls of gas millions of light years away. What is the sun and how far is it? What is the moon and how far is it? etc, etc. This list goes on and on." Yeah, but saying the Earth is flat, because NASA lied about space is not very logical. How do we explain a photo like this?: Most flat Earthers would give this as an example that the Earth is flat, when it clearly shows the opposite unless there is another weird mechanism at work here(which no one bothered to explain). The idea that a visible curvature proves flatness is pretty much analogous to saying that the Sun is a triangle, because you see it round. This does not prove curved Earth. In fact, we are not sure what it proves if anything. If a Mirage then it does not fit Fata or superior. If it's just the curve, then the curve is way off in measurements. Since it's about 43-50 miles away, then I have to ask what was used to take the picture, things get pretty fuzzy at 50 miles away. I also can't find another picture clear as this?? Refraction can very easy explain a flat earth for the bottom of the water. A bit closer can explain a curve, none of the mirages explain what we see. I almost believe this was taken closer than what was stated. The Refraction though because of the lake and gathering of light does explain though, and if curved we would see it by the way the buildings looked, but they are straight up and down. I would vote for this is not a photo on the MI shore. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Dec 16, 2015 9:00:22 GMT
Mike H, I don't understand your point. If it doesn't prove curved Earth, it doesn't prove flat Earth either.By the way, you can't even prove that it was impossible to see what was seen, because you don't know the exact distance and the height from which the photo was taken and these two variables are quite important when you calculate the maximum horizon distance. It might actually be well within limits. Do you know that there are panorama generators which produce absolutely perfect real-life panoramas of distant mountains/peaks from a given height. However, even without the complete information you can tell that particular photo was a mirage. There are three places on the photo where this is visible.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boethius on Dec 16, 2015 13:04:12 GMT
I will, once again, explain why space rockets are not scientifically possible.
In order for the gas expelled from a rocket to move the rocket the gas must touch the rocket. If the gas moves the rocket without touching the rocket then it would be performing "action at a distance," like telekinesis.
"Scientists" at NASA are claiming gas magically moves the rocket without touching it.
Why doesn't gas touch the rocket?
Because after the nozzle of the combustion chamber is opened all the gas flows through the nozzle into space immediately, at the rate of about 2 km/second. That is how fast gas enters a vacuum.
(for those interested in mathematical proof search "the expansion of a gas-could into a vacuum")
OK, but maybe it touches the rocket as it speeds out?
No. The gas will always expand towards the area of least pressure which through the nozzle towards the point in the universe farthest from any other atom and not the side of the rocket.
But the atoms will bump each other as they all try to squeeze through the center of the nozzle?
No. Each combusted atom of gas moves at the same speed. The atom closest to the center of the open nozzle gets out first, followed by the one right behind it, which will never catch the first molecule because the first molecule never slows down because there is no friction in space. You can number each molecule in the combustion chamber from 1 to 1,000,000,000,000,0000 based on how close they are to the center of the nozzle, no two molecules will be at the exact same distance from the center so they will all exit in an orderly manner, never touching each other, never touching the ship. Hence, the claim of rocket flight is a claim of action at a distance, which is magic, not science.
But what if two molecules are equidistant from the nozzle, center, one on the left side, one on the right, won't they collide?
No. There is plenty of space for them both to exit without collision because the nozzle is more than one molecule wide and each molecule moves in a straight line when it exits. If you have 10 people running out of a door and they are all standing in a straight line moving at the same speed and in the same direction, if the door is 100 feet wide they will not collide. If the door is 2-feet they will. The nozzle is many times wider than the width of the atoms that will pass through at any one instant.
But if the gas is leaving the combustion chamber won't the part that hasn't left yet push against the rocket?
No. Because every molecule in the combustion chamber immediately pushes towards the nozzle (zero pressure) as soon as it is opened. No gas will push towards the side of the rocket (positive pressure). The pressure inside the combustion chamber drops to 0 immediately.
But then the gas inside the combustion chamber is pushing against itself?
No. All the gas is leaving in an orderly fashion. When the nozzle is opened, the gas closest to the edge of the top of the combustion chamber moves towards the bottom and no longer pushes against the side of the rocket. The molecule in front of it is already moving as well, at the same speed and in the same direction so they will never collide. Because the molecules exit the nozzle without bumping into each other even the last molecule leaves without any interference.
This is Joule Expansion proven by Peter Fireman in the Journal of Physical Chemistry. This is real science, not magic NASA hoodwinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lyle Landstrom on Feb 2, 2016 20:57:23 GMT
This is real tragic, people claiming to know physics without a clue.
Rockets do work in a vacuum. Dr. Robert Goddard tested them in a vacuum as early as 1916. You can research it and see for yourself. You can see a public demonstration at the Smithsonian.
The Joules law of Free Expansion cannot apply to rockets as the application used a compressed volume of gas within a closed container connected to another closed container of equal volume with a valve between the two.
The gas used is an "Ideal Gas" and once the valve opened and pressure equalized, there was no work being done by the gas. The total volume of the system remains the same. it's a closed system with no thermal transfer of energy. this is not the case in a rocket which uses combustion (or a compressed gas) expelled at a high rate of speed through an orifice to the outside. It doesn't matter if the outside is a vacuum or the atmosphere to produce thrust via Newtons 3rd law. Or F = MA. But rockets are more efficient in a vacuum. As long as the propellant has mass, and it's accelerating, there will be a force in the opposite direction. This force is called thrust. The propellant is accelerated from 0 (relative to the rocket) to some other speed at the end of the nozzle. There's acceleration, there's mass, and therefore there's thrust. Regarding the statement above saying there's 0 pressure, this is untrue, there's 1000's of psi within the combustion chamber of a rocket. These are highly energized particles that are directed rearward. the combustion chamber remains pressurized due to the constant supply of fuel and ignition within it.
The reference above pointing out Joules Free Expansion having been proven is correct, but what's not pointed out is that refers to a closed two chamber system, It uses and Ideal gas, Overall volume of the system does not change (how can that work in a rocket?) and there's no thermal transfer of energy. I hope everyone takes another look at Joules Free Expansion and understands how it cannot work as applied to rockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by cableguy on Mar 25, 2016 3:18:58 GMT
Robert Goddard is hailed by nasa as the father of rocketry. Dr. Goddard didn't test any rockets in a vacuum in 1916. I can guarantee rockets were not tested in a vacuum in 1916. It appears nasa has bastardized Dr. Goddard's work and changed it to further the fraud of nasa that space travel can be achieved in the vacuum of space when it cannot. Rockets must be able to function in space or they cannot pull off their claims that they have a rover that went to mars, or there are satellites that are and/or have sent images back from space. These images claimed by nasa are, in the most simple terms, fake. They need rockets to work in the space vacuum so they can continue to siphon money from american tax payers to fund their imaginary space missions. When space travel is impossible, nasa creates great graphics, CGI, photoshopped images, CGI video, green-screen productions, and even manipulating science to create an illusion that the impossible is possible when it is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Mar 31, 2016 14:27:10 GMT
I won't be surprised if there is no space at all. What exactly is the concrete evidence that the universe is infinite or that there is a huge distance between us and some observable lights in the sky?
|
|
William Vietinghoff
Guest
|
Post by William Vietinghoff on Apr 24, 2016 18:40:12 GMT
Here's proof rockets can't work in a vacuum: Imagine the rocket ship is a 6-sided plastic die. If there is 0 pressure exerted equally on all six faces when its in space which way will the rocket go? It will go where gravity tells it to go. So how can we use our rocket thrust to push the die towards the moon? We can't because no matter how much high pressure gas the die-rocket releases there will always be 0 pressure against all six faces. Thrust requires high pressure behind and low pressure in front of the object being moved. We cannot use gas to create a local high-pressure zone in space because every gas molecule released into the vacuum speeds away and disappears into the void. The first molecule disappears and the second goes right behind it, never catching up to the first one because the first one never slows down and so on up to an almost infinite number all escaping the rocket without bumping into each other. No molecule ever bumps into another so the area under the rocket remains zero pressure. In the atmosphere the first molecule out is slowed down by the air molecules underneath the rocket so the second one collides with the first, etc... In the atmosphere every molecule will either collide with the air or another molecule or both. In an atmosphere there will be billions of collisions per second per molecule whereas in space there will be zero. With no collisions between gas molecules there is no pressure and with no pressure there is no thrust. Let a scientist with a degree and an academic position debate me on this topic. I'm waiting. I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering and have spent fifty-six years in rocket propulsion development. I offer this much of a debate. A rocket engine combustion chamber, such as the RS-27 engine used on the Delta II launch vehicles has a chamber pressure of 700 pounds per square inch at the face of the injector (where the fuel and oxidizer enter) In this area there are intense COLLISIONS of the gas molecules. This pressure exerts an enormous force against the injector, developing thrust. For the record on a related topic, I would like to read comments from other forum participants as to the extent of what they believe has and has not occurred as far as rocket propelled vehicle launches. Some have stated that there have been launches that reached high altitudes, but have not reached space. What is the consensus? Did John Glenn orbit the earth in his Freedom 7 capsule in 1962? Is there really a space statiion in orbit? |
|
|
|
Post by nj_guest on Jun 1, 2016 1:56:35 GMT
"Imagine the rocket ship is a 6-sided plastic die."
Yes, lets.
Imagine now you ignite some fuel.... wait...
First - what happens to the gases created by burning some fuel without the die?
Answer: the gases expand equally in all directions.
Now, let's say you have a very large die - each side is 1 km long.
Burn some fuel in the center. What happens?
The gases expand equally in all directions, until (several seconds later) the gases collide with the sides of the die. Net force is zero, since each side has the same force exerted on it.
Now shrink the die, so that its sides are 1 meter long.
Ignite some fuel. What happens?
Same thing as with the 1 km die, except there is a much shorter duration between igniting the fuel, and the gases colliding with the sides of the die.
Now, run that same test again, except remove one side of the die. What happens?
The fuel is ignited, and just like before, the gases expand in all directions, exerting a force on all sides of the die - EXCEPT for the side which was removed.
The opposite side, however, still has a force exerted on it, and the die moves.
|
|
|
|
Post by lol on Jul 22, 2016 20:00:34 GMT
Path of Least Resistance, shill.
Learn what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kelvin on Aug 27, 2016 19:39:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 3, 2016 7:24:07 GMT
If you fill a container with a gas and place it in a low pressure area and make a hole in the container there is a pressure inside the container equally in all directions apart from where the hole is. The forces are unbalanced so the container moves away from the hole. The mechanism of propulsion does not even require the molecules to have already left the container for those particular molecules to have already done their work of giving a force which is unbalanced. Once they are inside the container moving towards the exit and they touch no other object they have already done their work. However the forces that are created inside the container cannot exist unless there is a hole from which the contents of the container must leave the container. What comes out of the container is just waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by lol on Sept 15, 2016 5:23:21 GMT
Pressure is a Scalar Quantity, therefore your nonsense about 'unbalanced forces inside a container' has no scientific validity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PressureAlso, here is a video of nitrocellulose, i.e. gun-cotton, NOT combusting in only a mild vacuum: So you may wish to re-think all your silly 'a rocket is like a gun' false analogies too. There is no science whatsoever that supports the concept of gas-powered rockets producing motion in a vacuum... None. There are, however, a lot of propagandists that support it. Which is why this thread will never end. |
|
|
|
Post by lol on Sept 26, 2016 19:28:14 GMT
Here is a video of a gun NOT recoiling until well after the bullet has exited the barrel: Here is an explanation of why this is the case: www.patents.com/us-4126077.htmlNote that 'the major cause of recoil is not the impact caused by the firing of the weapon but the rush of air back into the evacuated bore'. Note that as there is no air in a vacuum, the major cause of recoil is eliminated. As for what we now know is the minor cause of recoil, a gun consists of the mass of the barrel, A, the mass of the bullet, B, with the propellant, P, positioned between them. When the propellant, P, expands into a gas through explosive combustion, masses A & B are thrust apart. In a rocket, however, only the solid mass of the casing (i.e. barrel), A, & the propellant, P, are present. There is no equivalent to mass B, the bullet. Yet we know that a rocket does produce motion when fired in an atmosphere. Thus: some other mass, extrinsic to the rocket, must be taking the place of mass B, the bullet. And the only possibility for that other mass is the mass of the atmosphere through which the rocket moves. Of course, in a vacuum there can be NO mass B... Moreover, gun-cotton does not combust explosively in a vacuum anyway... The 'a rocket is like a gun' false analogy is thus forever discredited. Again, I state that there is no science that supports the notion of a gas-powered rocket producing motion in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete71 on Nov 7, 2016 15:05:06 GMT
Your rocket theory is the equivalent to kicking a football around inside a caravan and when the ball shoots out an open door... the caravan is propelled forward. You have to agree to that being true to continue believing that rockets can work in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete71 on Nov 7, 2016 15:30:27 GMT
Your rocket theory is the equivalent to kicking a football around inside a caravan and when the ball shoots out an open door... the caravan is propelled forward. You have to agree to that being true to continue believing that rockets can work in a vacuum. does the following analogy work? Slow motion rocket propulsion model; Our dummy rocket sits atop and is sealed to an empty cylinder that is 6feet tall and 1 foot in diameter for no particular reason.The cylinder is analogous to the limit of displacement of the surrounding atmosphere beneath the rocket. If sand is poured through a hole in the top of the rocket and falls through the bottom of the rocket to simulate expanding ejected high pressure gas. Then fills the cylinder to its maximum height will it not then displace the rocket off the top of the cylinder? In an actual rocket does not this cylinder or resistance which again represents the atmospheres limit of displacement the force that propels the rocket? To simulate this model in a vacuume do we not just open the trap door below the cylinder into the abyss (vacuum) letting all the sand fall away so that it can never pile up and push the model rocket sealed atop the cylinder? Google "Nerds proves rocket cant work in Space" I watched a fellow on YouTube put a filled Ballon with a straw in it (model of rocket) attached to a toy bus propel itself across a flat surface. when the fellow placed.a vacuum cleaner hose near the end of the straw as the air was ejecting, the bus would not move. My 9 year old son immediately stated that if the fellow had places the suction hose more closely and directly behind the balloon it would most likely never move....we are going to try this experiment ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 15, 2016 16:40:23 GMT
you can´t create a chemical reaction in the vaccum of space In any case the chemical reaction happens during the high pressure chemical reaction occuring inside the rocket. A gun will still fire in space. Its just a chemical reaction that occurs inside the cartridge housing the bullet. Free expansion argument: Effectively a rocket motor creates a particle beam streaming out into the vacuum of space. Those particles will not change direction to fill a vacuum instantaneously because they have inertia, where inertia is the resistance to a change in direction which is a property of matter. eg your car goes straight on at a curve in the road. Once the particles have left the nozzle in a rearwords direction their work is done. Those particles that immediately escape sideways subtract from the available force but do not destroy all of the rockets propulsion. A gun's cartridge (a bullet) will not fire in a vacuum. A near total vacuum such as how Space is described (Which is BS in reality) is devoid of OXYGEN and without OXYGEN there is no combustion (NO BOOM). And whoever said that a vacuum is the absence of everything is WRONG. A vacuum is a vacuum, there are varying degrees of vacuum, a vacuum will always exist in a vessel that is lower pressure than the surrounding ambient pressure. Space as it is "sold" to us is a FARCE. An atmosphere which is described as our's is would NEVER exist butted up against a vacuum such as Space. The pressure of our Atmosphere would seek to equalize until all the pressure (all the barometric measurable air pressure) is GONE.. Sucked out into Space just like someone who opened a Scuba Tank, or let open a balloon. Every last molecule of air would be removed from our Earth and would spread out into Space evenly. If Space is Finite, the vacuum of space would slightly decrease as the pressure of our atmosphere would now be filling the "vessel" of Space. Gases ALWAYS will seek to equalize pressure, they will NEVER exist in a differentiation unless they are seperated / SEALED in a SEALED VESSEL with a CLOSEABLE "VALVE". The pressure of our atmosphere seeks to equalize always just as a pressurized aircraft looses all its pressure if a seal is broken or door is opened, same thing with our atmosphere to space.. |
|
|
|
Post by Klepete71 on Feb 27, 2017 7:35:08 GMT
In a atmosphere it is. its magic What? oh yea btw. a car moves in a atmosphere too It is just physics. If you could chuck stuff out the back of a car in space your action creates an equal an opposite reaction without there being an atmosphere No magic required If tonnes of particles are travelling out of a rocket nozzle in a organised beam of particles travelling away from the rocket then tonnes of reaction is created to propel the rocket thru the vacuum of space without the difficulties of having to push tonnes of particles of air out of the way. Its going to go pretty fast pretty quickly and keep going faster while it has the power to chuck out tonnes of particles that move backwards away from the rocket. |
|
|
|
Post by Klepete71 on Feb 27, 2017 7:54:15 GMT
read a similar tale of an MIT professor standing on a skateboard and then throwing a medicine ball or some similar weighted object and when the action moved him he claimed that is how a rocket works in space. Now Ive only got grade 12 physics but he seemed to have missed the coefficient of friction of his feet on the skateboard on the bearings through the wheels and to the floor creating a resistance or leverage like a fulcrum resulting in motion. Pumping on a swing works the same way. In an ifinite vacuum no such reaction is possible to ky mind. FYI all posters exclaiming recoil of a firearm is how a rocket works need to look at anti recoil mechanism patents for firearms. Simply wrote...Recoil is predominantly produced by high airpressure slamming back into the low pressure barrel after the ejected bullet and hot expanding gases leave the barrel at such velocity the atmosphere in the barrel is momentarily ejected before being replaced. incidently this is similar to a theory put forth to explain knuckles cracking. Low pressure created and high pressure rushing to equalize. Nature abhors a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Klepete71 on Apr 5, 2017 3:28:45 GMT
In a atmosphere it is. its magic What? oh yea btw. a car moves in a atmosphere too It is just physics. If you could chuck stuff out the back of a car in space your action creates an equal an opposite reaction without there being an atmosphere No magic required If tonnes of particles are travelling out of a rocket nozzle in a organised beam of particles travelling away from the rocket then tonnes of reaction is created to propel the rocket thru the vacuum of space without the difficulties of having to push tonnes of particles of air out of the way. Its going to go pretty fast pretty quickly and keep going faster while it has the power to chuck out tonnes of particles that move backwards away from the rocket. |
|
|
|
Post by Klepete71 on Apr 5, 2017 3:39:02 GMT
It is just physics. If you could chuck stuff out the back of a car in space your action creates an equal an opposite reaction without there being an atmosphere No magic required If tonnes of particles are travelling out of a rocket nozzle in a organised beam of particles travelling away from the rocket then tonnes of reaction is created to propel the rocket thru the vacuum of space without the difficulties of having to push tonnes of particles of air out of the way. Its going to go pretty fast pretty quickly and keep going faster while it has the power to chuck out tonnes of partgicles that move backwards away from the rocket. chucking objects out of the back of a car will create a force in the opposite direction only because of the existance of coefficient of friction between the rubber and the road via the bearings and axels and the frame to the floor boards of the far via your shoes or clothing to your skin and on through to your muscle skeletal frame. Infinite voids like the vacuum of space exhibit a total and complete lack of any such fulcrums. It is nothing it is a vacuum.... |
|
