/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9478017
>NASA claims that rockets work in space because of Newton's 3rd law
That is how they work

>but there is no atmosphere to aid in that equal and opposite reaction
You don't need an atmosphere. Expelling a jet stream at high velocity will create thrust in the opposite direction - you don't need an atmosphere for that.

>>9478024
but isnt it pushing off of the jetstream? (what then is the jetstream pushing off of)

You know what momentum transfer is right? If a particle is initially at test, then is accelerated in some direction to an arbitrary velocity, then force was applied to it, and momentum was therefore added to the particle proportional to it's mass and velocity. Obviously, if this force was applied to the particle to accelerate it, that force came from somewhere, and the momentum of the particle is applied in the opposite direction to what pushed it. Listen carefully. Rocket make many particle go very fast. Not only is it not pushing on the atmosphere, the atmosphere pushes back on particle and causes less momentum. Pushing against the atmosphere make rocket go slower because particle not go as fast.

>>9478033
>you know what momentum transfer is right?
no

thank you for guidance, regardless of patronizing, much appreciated anon

>>9478017
Do me a favor, point out the word ''atmosphere'' in Newton's laws.

>>9478032
>but isnt it pushing off of the jetstream?
No, it's pushing off the exhaust gases.

When a rocket burns, the flame gets pushed one way and the rocket gets pushed the other.

>>9478033
also i was thinking the exhaust needed something to "ground" itself for the rocket to "push off" the exhaust

>>9478046
Newton didnt test in a vacuum

>>9478057
That's like saying that a man can't jump unless he stands in a bucket and holds onto the handles, and he could also hover if he pushes hard enough.

That's retarded right? I hope you at least agree with that. When you jump, you push on the earth. The earth is the particle you transfer momentum to. In a rocket, the exhaust is the particle you push against and add momentum to. And it pushes back and adds the same amount of momentum to you in the opposite direction.

>>9478052
right so i was, and possibly still am , under the impression that in a vacuum the exhaust gases would just fly out and the rocket wouldnt be able to push off them, because theres no particles

>>9478090
agreed, forgive my lapse in brain function

>>9478096
They fly out because the rocket is pushing against them.

>>9478090
oh wait...

now i really understand how asinine of a thought process that was

EVERY force has an equal and opposite force
vacuum of space, atmosphere of Earth, doesn't matter

>>9478057
>>9478096
>>9478017
This is some mind blowing stupidity. If you are just now learning that in space, there's no atmosphere, then you have no place claiming that rocket thrust in space is a meme. You are the manlet of brainlets

Newton's laws require that all objects involved are part of the same positive pressure system, aka earth and its surrounding atmosphere.

All objects involved in a chain of equal and opposite reactions must be able to enact force on each other to provide equal and opposite reactions.

On earth, the propeller of a boat pushes off the ocean, but the ocean must also push off its container, and the container must push off something else etc, etc, a constant chain of equal and opposite reactions must be maintained for the laws to work.

A vacuum breaks this link of equal and opposite reactions, a gas and a vacuum cannot create thrust together, hence space travel is a meme.

>>9478118
ive always known that, i was simply verifying whether or not my assumptions were correct, that being said, it be more brainlet to assume things are truth without verifying them myself (i.e. trying to understand whether or not a rocket could work in a vacuum because i have no logical proof that we've been to space
>inb4 but the pictures, but the equations that we were told of what they represent, but daddy tesla
)

>>9478127
thanks anon

>>9478127
Literally not true and I don't know if I could even dumb down the basics of the bedrock elementary school principles of physics enough for you to understand.

Say u hav 1 gumball and another gumball. So now you have how many? Two gumball! So you have two gumball. You put one gumball on the side of your play mat when you're at special intervention educat- I mean good boy school. Now you put other gumball on other side of play mat. Now.... roll them together so they meet in the middle, on the big blue puzzle piece logo. Wow! They bounced off each other and went back towards he side they came from! Amazing, you're such a good boy. You just learned the law of conservation of momentum! Extra tendies for you today big guy.

>>9478017
That isn't NASA's claim, that is Newton's claim. And it has been well accepted by not just NASA, but everyone with a high school education since Newtonian mechanics became accepted laws of the world we live in.

>>9478127
>space travel is a meme.
Can you explain how GPS works?

>>9478162
Deep state jews who put nanites in your barbecue sauce

>>9478127
Why do people think space is a vacuum when gravity does exist in space along with gasses and other elements? Space isn't a void of nothingness

>>9478162
no can you?
>inb4 then go read more trig textbooks
pliz explain right now how GPS works

>>9478167
>Alex Jones intensifies

>>9478162
there's a network of high-orbit satellites that are constantly pinging their location in every direction
a receiver on earth can figure out it's location on the Earth's surface with two or three (ideally three) different satellite pings

>>9478175
A system of satellites orbiting the Earth receives radio signals from a GPS-enabled device somewhere on Earth. The signals include the time they were sent. By timing how long it takes the signal to travel from the transmitter to the satellite, you can figure out how far away the satellite is. If you do this for 4 satellites, you can triangulate the exact position on Earth that the device is at.

You don't need any trig, you can do it with a compass and a ruler.

>>9478196
I simply wished to understand how rockets work in a vaccuum

>>9478200
We explained it, and yet you and others kept denying it. The fact that the GPS system exists and works, and uses space-based satellites, is proof that rockets do in fact work in space.

>>9478141
It is infinitely more brainlet to open a conversation claiming that NASA has been tricking people the whole time while stating that we are all "ignoring all logical possibilities".

If you are truly claiming we have "no logical proof" that we've been to space (whatever that means), then I say buy yourself a telescope, not the walmart brand, find out when the ISS will cross over you and then simply look up.

Lastly, once you graduate highschool and start taking the baby math classes offered in college, you start to actually understand physics and put them into practice. There's no need to just take people's word for them anymore. But sadly, you will never experience that situation because you are unable to process any thought beyond "I don't understand something, so it must not be real"

>>9478152
Have you heard the saying "opposites attract"? Gases (positive pressure) and a vacuum (negative pressure) will attract each other. This is fundamental, provable science. They cannot repel each other and produce thrust., that's fucking fantasy.

>>9478162

It doesn't work everywhere. But it could be done with weather balloons (particularly geostationary satellites), drones, high altitude planes, anything that can fly and carries GPS technology, as well as land based telecommunications via triangulation.

>>9478225
The numbers involved would be much different. You would get different distances measured if it was done with anything but satellites. Geostationary satellites orbit at ~22,000 miles altitude. A balloon can't go anywhere near that high.

>>9478225
It's sad to know that people as idiotic as you have access to the internet and you insist on spreading your ignorance. You are a virus in human form. Gasses are positive and a vacuum is negative? You claim it's fundamental, yet you have no understanding of what gas is, what a vacuum is, or what the terms positive and negative mean. Your life is a disgrace, and I feel as though the universe owes us all an apology for not letting you die before you had the chance to form even one of your asinine remarks.

>>9478216

>autistically screeches about people needing to learn some fucking basic physics

>provides no physics of their own

>>9478233
>satellites orbit at ~22,000 miles altitude

Prove it.

>>9478242

What happens when a gas meets a vacuum Mr Nobel Prize?

>NASA claims
>Posts pic of Ariane 5

I will not even care to explain how 3rd Newton law works. People who are this stupied need to change themselfs, before trying explaining things to them

>>9478255
Well I can actualy see ISS with my telescope.

>What happens when a gas meets a vacuum Mr Nobel Prize?
Wew. He must be fucking pretending.

>>9478216
its not that i dont understand it so it musnt be real but rather the way i understand it doesnt line up with what im being told

>>9478255
The same thing that happens when a gas of greater density meets a gas of lesser density. They spread out to reach equilibrium. Neither one is "attracting" the other. Sorry, but your 2nd grade science teacher was wrong

>>9478260
>themselfs
themselves

>>9478268
Thank you.

>>9478225
Wow, I can't believe even that explanation was a little too highbrow for you. In my experience, they usually keep people like you on enough Thorazine to keep you in bed so you don't hurt yourself in a tantrum when you're stopped from licking the windows. Do they allow internet access in group homes now?

>>9478017
Don't. Don't even.

>>9478266
>gets told Santa is real for the first 10 years of his life
>one day, he is told that Santa isn't real
>What I'm being told doesn't add up, I like Santa, and everyone who says he isn't real is just a liar covering up a conspiracy!
>"But here's the proof that Santa doesn't exist"
>I DON'T UNDERSTAND SHHHHH YOU LIE

>>9478267
Sorry brainlet but two gases of differing densities will naturally repel each other and separate. A gas and a vacuum will not repel each other, they are attracted to each other. A gas wants to fill a vacuum, and a vacuum wants to be filled. I can't spell this out any clearer for you.

I have a stupid related question.

Are we in space right now?

Now I understand we are on Earth, but the planet is in space, so aren't we in space?

>>9478273

argumentum ad hominem

>>9478290
I'm just going to take that response as a "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll spout nonsense"

>>9478290
Nah man, physics is really Kikestrodynamics. You aren't taking into account the effect that the shabbos has on gasses when you are 30 shmeckle's length away from a baconator. Natural inverse quantum field shift from red to light cyan, which makes space travel possible on every tuesday when a reptilian isn't in mating season on alpha centuari.

>>9478295
Anon please. It depends on definition of "being on earth" and "being in space" you use in given sentence.

>>9478305
Look at you with your big boy words! I bet you managed to keep the pampers off for a whole day without needing a little cleany poo. Still, life must be hard for someone who couldn't even complete highschool special ed. What do they have you little guys do these days? Back when i worked taking care of the developmentally handicapped, we had to just keep them in the lobby of the local recycling plant for appearances. We tried to get you scamps to do basic tasks like move object a to location b, but you never knew when they would shit themselves or start masturbating and we needed to keep a better eye on ya.

>>9478314
If I walk in the fridge I am in the fridge. If I have a big enough fridge and I crane in a sustainable pod and put it in the fridge I am still in the fridge.

>>9478306

I'm just going to take that response as "I have no retort, therefore I concede. Space travel is a meme and I've been duped".

>>9478017

>>9478307
>>9478317

>>9478327
You write like someone who was molested as a child. You were, weren't you? Who was it? The classic uncle touch, or maybe even your dad. Was it a stranger? I bet they made you feel like a good girl and you get hard when you think about it, because you really liked being fucked, deep down.

>>9478200
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_zaa_uqBSE

like in vid except a rocket doesn't throw a bullet, it just throws gas. The bullet doesn't push off the air, it gets pushed by the gas explosion. The gas explosion also pushes the gun, but mostly the reaction from the mass of the bullet being thrown at several hundred feet per second is what pushes the gun, the shooter, and ultimately the boat, through the water.

In vacuum, the explosion in the combustion chamber of the rocket still happens because they brought their own oxidizer. That basically means the combustion chamber isn't in vacuum, then the explosion can only go one way, out the end of the rocket. It tries to rip the rocket apart (pushes on the rocket) but the rocket is strong enough to hold itself together before the pressure escapes out the nozzle, which controls the exploded gas so that it all moves in the same direction. This maximizes the push from the explosion in the combustion chamber on the rocket so that the fuel is used efficiently.

If you closed off the nozzle, then the explosion would cause a bunch of little pieces of the rocket to move in all directions all at once. I think you understand that this would happen even in vacuum. But when you open up one end, you get one big piece of of the rocket all moving in the same direction.

>>9478327
Go ahead and believe that, it won't effect my life or the real world. I would say something like we'll leave you in the dust, but humans have known space travel has been possible for over 100 years, so I'll just leave you with a pat on the back and an "OK buddy ;)"

>>9478333
He must be pretending. I mean, there is not a single person on Earth being this stupied and able to use internet.

>>9478017
The New York Times thought EXACTLY the same thing -- in 1929.
They published a retraction the day Apollo 11 lifted.

https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space

It only took them 49 years to figure this out.
Can you do better?

>>9478335

Is that you Bill Nye? No need to take your anger out on me, go find another career.

>>9478017 (OP)
The New York Times thought EXACTLY the same thing -- in 1920.
They published a retraction the day Apollo 11 lifted.

https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space

It only took them 49 years to figure this out.
Can you do better?

>>9478351
Did he look like Bill? I bet you can almost feel those dirty hands on your no no parts when you see a bowtie.

>>9478333
I believe some of this, but not others. Am i a scientismian?

>>9478356
>actually thinking that tin can piece of shit went into space

>>9478284
more like
>entire population gets told that santa is real
>dont really believe it or understand the logistics but everyone else seems to believe it so i guess ill just agree with them
>finds out santa isnt real 7 years later
>wait how can everyone i know just lie to me and make me believe something so asinine
>i cant trust anyone and i must make sure my beliefs are backed by certainty

>>9478338
but at the point were the exhaust escape so the rocket doesnt blow up, there is a vacuum

so the combustion chamber(on a rocket) works like a capacitor, releasing the pressure at a certain point?

>>9478032
Fuel is originally at rest inside the rocket. Exhaust gets accelerated by whatever reaction propels the rocket. This, in turn, makes the rocket accelerate in the opposite direction. Where are you lost?
In a way, it's the exact inverse of two bodies with equal and opposite momentum colliding.

>>9478550
after the exhaust leaves the nozzle, it no longer interacts with the rocket so no longer imparts momentum into the rocket. It just endless drifts out in space in a straight line unless it bumps into some of the nearby gas. The gas in the combustion chamber pushes out the gas near the nozzle, the gas near the nozzle pushes back against the gas in the combustion chamber (Newton's Third Law). As this gas leaves, it also pushes against itself and expands, where it hits the nozzle and again pushes against the rocket directly. The rocket pushes back against the gas and the gas now leaves the rocket for good traveling mostly in the direction opposite the rocket.

The combustion chamber works like am untied water balloon. The explosion gives the inside high pressure, the hole at the end gives the gas under pressure a place to go.

>>9478255
satellites theoretically could just be high alt balloons, towers, land based system, high alt drones and planes, underground ocean cables. The only real pictures we get are from inside out atmosphere.

>can't prove rockets work in a vacuum

lol

>>9478017
If I were magically floating in space with a bag full of baseballs, and I started throwing those baseballs at a fixed point, I would accelerate away from said fixed point.

Why does it feel like human understanding is regressing.

>>9478878
yes but combustion chamber gas <- nozzle gas <- ? my point is newtons law applies when there is an atmosphere; its not simply two particles moving eachother without anything moving them

if you are floating in space and push a weightless bowling ball (you're in a vacuum), you will not move back, the ball will move but you will not because youre in a vacuum

or at least that is how i see it

>>9478948
Well, you're wrong. Push on a bowling ball and you'll move the other way.
Conservation of momentum. No isolated system can change its center-of-mass. The COM is somewhere between you and the ball, right? If the ball moves and you don't then the COM will recede at some fraction of the ball's speed.
If you are 10 times as massive as the ball it will go one way at X and you will go the other at X/10. All velocities measured from a pebble which was floating next to you and has been left undisturbed.

>>9478895
Except, you fucking nigger, that 1. the exosphere is thin enough to not really interfere with satellites in LEO, but enough to make them need orbital correction occasionally or burn up, and 2. we actually used to have a land-based long range global positioning system called LORAN, which was inaccurate, shit, and only really useful for ships, and taken offline in 2000.

>>9478941
>>9478878
>>9478338
what's important isnt an explanation of how it works, whats important is the proof of that it works

all im seeing are people beating around the bush

dont simply say
>the particles push off of eachother you dont need an atmosphere, do you not understand momentum brainlet, i cant explain it to a brainlet etc.

show us proofs that two particles in a vacuum can push of off eachother from rest; GPS isnt proof, pictures/media/video of moonlanding isnt proof

Give us mathematical proof or go back to /pol/

>inb4 brainlet doesnt see video/pictures as proof

this is /sci/ people, be intentional about things

>>9478971
also stop getting emotional this isnt /women anonymous/

>>9478961
considering the conservation of momentum, the only way space travel works because of before it leaves the atmosphere

a rocket cannot go from standstill to moving, because theres no momentum to conserve

momentum is the product of mass and velocity. A change in momentum over a change in time results in a force. Since your mass as a rocket changes when you expell fuel (or anything else) you induce a force. Forces move things.

can we close the thread now? I fucking hatr these baitropolis shitholes of a thread we have

>>9478971
> mathematical proof
Fuck off you stupid brainlet, that isn't how mathematical proof works at all. Physics CANNOT be "proven" without experimentation. If video footage of spacecraft working or video footage of vacuum chambers demonstrating these effects are not enough to convince you then I don't know what will.

Let me explain this, again, in a way maybe you can grasp.

The Third Law states that all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. Imagine having a machine gun. When you shoot it you experience recoil. If it shot bullets big enough it might be able to go upwards if fired down. This is what a rocket does, and it does not require an atmosphere. You could try shooting a gun in a vacuum chamber but I doubt the chamber owners would let you.

This is effectively what a rocket engine does, shooting rocket exhaust gases, sort of like blanks, in a controlled manner to propel itself.

You may be confused because aircraft need an atmosphere to function. This is because they are, to keep up the analogy, basically collecting bullets from in front of them to shoot. It's not a great analogy but I hope you can understand it.

>>9478971
Newton's Third Law, conservation of momentum, Newton's Second Law, and finally Newton's First Law. If you are confused about how those are involved, see the explanation.

>>9478985
OP here
/thread

>>9478265
>Well I can actualy see ISS with my telescope.
ISS moves very fast across the sky. How are you able to follow it with the telescope?

>>9478017
This shitpost is the /sci/ equivalent of pic related.

It's not funny, it's just obnoxious.

>>9478032
think of it as an explosion, blasting outwards in all directions equally. The rocket just happens to be in the way and gets blasted along.
To make this process more efficient they construct nozzles and shit.

>>9478064
No he didn't. That's why he was such a fucking genius. He was able to derive general laws just by sitting behind his desk and doing calculations.
The point is that the laws work both in an atmosphere and in a vacuum.

>>9478032
>but isnt it pushing off of the jetstream? (what then is the jetstream pushing off of

The jetstream pushes against the spacecraft with the same force as the aircraft pushes against the jetstream.

The force applied on both is equal.

The mass of both is not equal.

Acceleration = Force/Mass

The spacecraft gets accelerated a bit and the jetstream gets accelerated much more.

this is really really simple kindergarden stuff

>>9478017

>>9478981
You really are dumb or a complete shitposter! Despicable in either case!
>only way space travel works
means you accept probes have gone to Mars.
They're aimed so accurately that they just wind up at Mars?
No. Their trajectories are observed for awhile and then commands are sent to make course corrections. And how do you do that if the probe is a million miles from Earth and rockets don't work in a vacuum?

>>9478017
https://youtu.be/oM5fKcU5ClI

>>9478127
#1 space isn't nothing.
#2 the newtonian laws used here aren't perfect but there is still an equal and opposite reaction to push from

the chemical reaction expands in the combustion chamber of the rocket and propels the rocket forward throughout space. there's your equal and opposite reaction. the combustion of the chemical process pushing against the rocket.

no atmosphere required.

but, again, space isn't nothing.

>>9478017
The mass of the craft is the equal and opposite reaction to the propellant. Propellant flies left, craft flies right. Get it now?

>>9478017
>no atmosphere
Welcome back to 1920, Anon.

>>9479722
https://youtu.be/O2QqOvFMG_A

>>9479768
>Get BTFO about your balloon conspiracies
>Sulk for a month
>Come back and hope nobody remembers
Sad!

>>9479780
>Conspiracy is a criminal charge
>What law/code would space balloons fall under as a crime/offense?

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/about/project-echo.html

>>9479768
>>9479722

>>9479785
https://youtu.be/68iWhWJhSvg

Goodbye thread.
Maybe it's better this way.

>>9479785

>put into orbit by a thor-delta

Why are we arguing. They outright say they launched the payload first then it floated down as a balloon.

There is no argument here about how far the vacuum of space stretches.

>>9478017
>somebody please enlighten me if im being a brainlet
You are being a brainlet. Rocket fuel(and combusted rocket fuel) has inertia, and the laws of physics reguarding inertia still apply with, or without, an atmosphere. The fuel the rocket is carrying IS what it is “pushing off of”.

Brainlet pls leave.

>>9478948
You will move back, any time you dump mass in x direction you will move opposite of that direction with an amount of force applied to you equal to that with which you applied to the mass you threw

>>9479443
The moon's orbital speed is 1022 km/s, but you can follow it no problem.

>>9479943
>The moon's orbital speed is 1022 km/s

*pats on head*

Sure it is buddy, sure it is...

I think society made a big mistake with closing the looney bins for being too inhumane.
My research data shows that the cancer afflicting the internet would drop by orders of magnitude if schizophrenics are taken in for... treatment.

>>9480024
The real schizos are those who believe in the heliocentric model with no ability to question their belief without resorting to anger, ad hominem and paranoia. Your beliefs about reality have been entirely constructed for you.

>>9480016
Wait, are you claiming that the moon is fake or something?

>>9480031
>no ability to question their belief without resorting to anger, ad hominem and paranoia.

So exactly like you?

>>9479943
but the moon is about 1,000 times further away than the ISS, so its apparent motion across the sky is very slow compared to the ISS.

>>9478096
>he impression that in a vacuum the exhaust gases would just fly out and the rocket

Gas in the rocket engine would tend to "fly out" into the vacuum of space, but not with as much force as it does when the combustion chamber is combusting away and the gas is heating and expanding rapidly. That makes it shoot out of the engine much faster than it would just by expanding into the vacuum.

As it does that, it pushes against the rocket engine, which in turn pushes the whole rocket ship forward, to a John Williams score and probably with a "whoosh" sound dubbed in by the sound guys.

Air around the rocket is not necessary, and is indeed a detriment as friction from pushing through the air tends to slow the rocket.

>>9478167
Is this why they don't eat delicious pork barbecue?

>>9478173
It is relatively vacuumy in the area where we are operating space ships.

>>9478196
>A system of satellites orbiting the Earth receives radio signals from a GPS-enabled device somewhere on Earth.

Isn't that backwards? My GPS is not signaling satellites, it is receiving signals from them, right?

>>9478207
>The fact that the GPS system exists and works, and uses space-based satellites, is proof that rockets do in fact work in space.

While I agree that rockets work in space and that's how we put satellites up there, I think you're statement is in error here.

We COULD use other means, like Big Ass Cannons or something, to get shit into space.

Or we COULD use rockets that get the satellite payload all lined up and moving fast while still in the atmosphere.

>>9478216
>buy yourself a telescope, not the walmart brand, find out when the ISS will cross over you and then simply look up.

It would be hard to track ISS with a telescope; it is booking along. And you don't need to, it is a naked-eye object around dusk and dawn. Easy to see.

>>9480036

The moon's definitely there, it's just there's no evidence the moon is orbiting a spheroid object while being conveniently "tidally locked" so we only ever see one "side" of it at all times. Am I seriously not allowed to question the validity of that conjecture?

>>9480280
I agree with your position anon
>A NASA Moon measurement educational video will not be posted
>links to diagrams of how it s measured may be posted but those calculations will be built on unproven assumptions like you mentioned

https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

https://youtu.be/U9wDxktPx4k

>>9480280
>>9480356
The Gaurdian published an article and instead of correcting or proving that someone's math was incorrect, they ignored it and instead choose to title the article and focus on a number from a man pointing his Nikon p900 at a building and then the Moon and estimating it s the same.

I m not impressed Gaurdian but not surprised either.
https://youtu.be/4aQsmpSq3QU

https://youtu.be/3rzt6U08gzM

>>9480098
Is there a link to some calculations that it s even possible to see the ISS with the unaided eye with it s given dimensions, distance and speed?

https://youtu.be/SiQy__6goCk

>>9478017
>obvious troll thread
>113 replies

>>9478895
http://www.sscspace.com/Products-Services/rocket-balloon-services/launch-services-esc

See >>9479722 video

>>9479722
cant they just put a selfie stick on 1 sat so we can see this view not a cartoon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw&t=4s

>>9480280
You are allowed to question the validity of the conjecture. You are retarded for rejecting the vast abundance of evidence that supports the conjecture. You are even more retarded for supporting the bullshit proposals asserted to replace the scientifically accepted answer.

>>9480825
DISCOVR/EPIC is essential this, isn't it?

>>9480280
There is ample evidence that it is a sphere -- even discounting (for no reason) photographs taken of the moon from space, it "Wobbles" a bit, and we see noticeably more than half its surface.

It is observably going around the Earth against the background stars -- unless you think the Earth is orbiting the moon, then it is orbiting us.

>>9481237
Here's an interesting gif made of pictures of successive full moons...

>>9480428
Calculations? See it yourself. You can track where it is and wait until it passes overhead.

>>9481237
Also, the waxing and waning of the moon corresponds exactly to how a sphere where the moon is would be lit by a light-source where the sun is.

>>9478290
> two gases of differing densities will naturally repel each other and separate.
what are thermodynamics?

>>9480428
Ha! Oh yeah... The ISS going overhead is *not* a subtle object. You can see it very easily with the naked eye, even from the midst of a brightly-lit city.

Go to heavens-above dot com, enter your geographic coordinates (three decimal places will do), and search for ISS passes. You may have to wait a bit. They come periodically in about fortnight-long waves and alternate between evening, morning, and no passes.

OC pic - 20-second shot caught part of the track (it can take several minutes to pass), Cassiopeia to the lower-right.

>>9480084
Nice dubs

>>9478141
That's like not believing Africa exists on the basis you've never been there yourself, but have only seen pictures and theories about there being several continents on a spherical world. If you can't learn about the world from others' experiences, you might as well be an illiterate peasant living 3000 years ago. Still, props to you for asking questions and figuring out your worldview was incorrect.

>>9478971
This is intellectually dishonest. Sometimes when I'm explaining scientific concepts to my fiancee she'll get upset because I'm not validating her opinions and being emotionally supportive, or because I'm acting like she's wrong and I'm right. Science doesn't care about your feelings. If you really don't think GPS is proof of space, you don't understand GPS or signals or computers. It's disappointing that you take these modern devices on faith, but get mad about the principles that make them possible. You're basically arguing magnets aren't real and that magnetic compasses are proof of nothing, although you benefit daily from their use.

>>9480883
>There is ample evidence that it is a sphere

There really isn't. The heliocentric model is so full of holes it's a fucking joke, and falls apart under the lightest of scrutiny.

It's only able to stick around due to the stubbornness of people who believe in science dogmatically.

>>9479787
so you think the baloon would pop?

you realize the only reasons balloons pop in space is because they're inflated to atmospheric pressure?

and the balloon satellite was inflated to well below atmospheric pressure?

>>9479787
>>9479785
>>9479768
>>9480356
>>9480407
>>9480428

go ahead and give this test a spin for me, bud.

http://test.mensa.no/

>>9480356
for someone who claims to be all about perspective you know an awfully small amount bout perspective.

>>9480280
>>9480356
>>9480407


what is the point of samefagging like this? do you honestly think people don't notice? why do you go out of your way to fake an entire converstion.

>>9482388
you actually believe this, don't you?

so a model of the heliocentric model is able to make ultraprecice predictions about astronomical events you can see day to day and night to night, yet it's "full of holes"

>>9480428
the iss would appear to be a little over a tenth of a degree in size in the sky. that figure exactly correlates with the hundreds of ammetuer videos of the iss passing in front of the moon and sun.

>>9482674

It's not hard to make precise predictions about the celestial objects we can actually observe because they consistently follow the same movements. This fact alone proves that the earth is not moving with the sun and orbiting the galaxy at ridiculous speeds because things would be far more unpredictable, and the movements of the stars would be very strange.

>>9482694
>consistently follow the same movements

incorrect. this proves you have literally never looked up for more than an hour in your life.

>>9478017
Galileo's law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

WHERE IS A SIMILAR VIDEO SHOWING PROOF OF NEWTON'S 3RD LAW ?????????????????????????????????? NO SUCH VIDEO SEEMS TO EXIST ???????????????????????
WHAT ARE NASA HIDING ?????????????????????????/ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>9482769
https://youtu.be/OmcwW-8CC6E

Curvature for a sphere of <25000 miles means 8 inches times the distance squared in miles.
Baal Earth is a meme. Always was. The math is fake. Aerial photography confirms it.

>>9482649
https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

>>9482769
so you're gonna believe anything a video on the internet tells you? Why don't you you test newton's third law yourself?

>>9482812
I have a globe. They're easy to come by. This one's .305m in diameter (about a foot).

The Earth is 12,756,000m in diameter.

That's a scale of about 1:41,822,951.

So that means if I'm at the top of the 828 meter Burj Khalifa, that building would jut out of my globe .00002 m or 0.02 mm = a fiftieth of a millimeter, something like a flake of silt. The texture of the globe material would obstruct any view of curvature.

How about in an airplane at 12,000 m? I'd be .00029 m or .29 mm = one third of a millimeter above the globe - something like a grain of salt. *Maybe* I could see a bit of curve, but I doubt it.

The ISS orbits at about 395,000 m. That would put it about .00944 m or 9.44 mm above my globe, about the length of a coffee bean. Yes, you should be able to see curvature from there (protip - they do).

What makes you think you should be able to see curvature? Protip - you don't. You know the result is negative and you're falsely using that as proof of no curvature. You're deceptive.

>>9482820
you already posted that video. the gif i posted is a direct counterexample to many of the videos points. the guy in the video seems to have little understanding that you can see details in far away objects if they're big enough.

when they show a full video from take off, docking, air lock, from astronaut body cam im not convinced about ISS, too much proof of cgi used

>>9483028
why would they do that? that would be litterally two days of footage.

>>9483028
>proof of cgi used

>>9478017
>somebody please enlighten me if im being a brainlet

Nah... You're not a brainlet. You're just a troll.

>>9482769

Where's the footage of a rocket flying up in that vacuum chamber? Would love to see it...

>>9483028
>two days of footage of the cramped internals of the soyuz, then some squeezing through a tunnel into a slightly less cramped ISS proves the Earth is round.

Wtf do you think you would see? The Soyuz and ISS aren't exactly full of windows the vast majority of the view would be the control panel with no part of the Earth in frame.

>>9482824
I don't believe for a second that the 3rd law isn't true, but I'd expect AT LEAST ONE SINGLE VIDEO FROM NASA demonstrating >>9483052, PARTICULARLY SINCE THEY HAVE THE PERFECT CHAMBER TO PERFORM THE TEST.

>>9483133
You clearly accept that space is a vacuum.
Otherwise you wouldn't be bitching about rockets not being able to work there.
The LEM took off from the Moon and maneuvered to rendezvous with the command module. The guys in the command module took movies.
The supply ships to the ISS maneuver to dock with the station. The guys in both craft took movies of the approach.

The alternative is a world-wide conspiracy of all scientists, engineers, and government officials (American, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese). One in which no one has broken "the code of silence" in half a century.
I respectfully suggest you resume taking your meds.

>>9483133
NASA demonstrates Newton's third law in a vacuum literally every rocket launch to orbit. They have no reason to put a rocket in their expensive chamber just to debunk internet trolls when everything NASA does normally already debunks internet trolls.

>>9483210
post a link

>>9481250
This is great. You can briefly see the craters on the edge in high contrast due to the shadows created by perpendicular sunlight

>>9478017
Reminder that flat-friends are only good for harvesting funny flat-earth memes.
do not pretend to engage them

>>9483218
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Here u go

>>9483133
Your observation and point are valid.

They can t demonstrate and prove through scientific experiment that a body of water such as the ocean or a lake can maintain a convex shape.
That's why the Metabunk Soundly 2 dimensional copy pasta towers missing half the structure "proving it".
There s no NASA video measuring the Sun, Moon or distance to stars.

>>9484292
https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

>>9478017
>but there is no atmosphere to aid in that equal and opposite reaction
There doesn't need to be.
Exhaust goes out the rocket bell, the opposite reaction is the rocket moving forward.

>>9480091
You're right.
The satellites are broadcasting the times they transmit, knowing these times, the receive times (accurate time on your device is very important!) the device can calculate the distance to the satellites and using that the device's position on the Earth.

>>9480825
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
It's night on this side of the planet right now but there is a new image every 10 minutes from the Himawari 8 satellite.
There's no copy/pasting of cloud formations, you can track in great detail the cloud formations to ensure the weather is matching up to what you observe if you live on this side of the planet.

Also, the Falcon and Electron rockets essentially have those "selfie sticks" on them but they're dismissed, so I doubt having one on a satellite that captures part of the satellite and Earth at the same time would actually convince anyone.

>>9482388
>There really isn't. The heliocentric model is so full of holes it's a fucking joke, and falls apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
There's no model that more concisely explains everything we observe in a relatively simple manner.

Also, I lived in the southern hemisphere for 30 years and I want you to explain why we see the same face of the moon at a different angle but still in the same phase and how the southern constellations work in your model.

>>9482812
>Curvature for a sphere of <25000 miles means 8 inches times the distance squared in miles.
That's actually incorrect. Squaring it would mean that it drops off exponentially and no one is arguing we live on a parabolic planet.

That equation works over relatively short distances but you need to use the proper calculation if you want longer distances.
Watch this vid if you want to get schooled by a kid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wyzjs-PROI

>>9484329
I want to see NASA measure the Moon

https://youtu.be/U9wDxktPx4k

>>9484332
Watched it this morning.

I ve been measuring the place. It s flat.
Hence >>9484292

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Earth%27s+curvature

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/qq.09.02/shirley3.html

>>9484339

>>9484341

>>9483035

Then theres this guy

>>9484350
>shall we give the astronauts new identities to maintain this conspiracy?
>no no, I'm sure they can just go about their lives with the same names and nobody will notice

>>9484292
>They can t demonstrate and prove through scientific experiment that a body of water such as the ocean or a lake can maintain a convex shape.
A demonstrative experiment would require having a body with enough mass to overcome the influence of gravity from other objects in its vicinity large enough that it wouldn't occur purely to viscosity.

Of course, once you prove gravity exists then there is no reason why it WOULDN'T maintain a convex shape when being held to an object by that force, because the body of water would be being pulled towards the center of that mass uniformly across its surface, so it would logically wrap around that body.
And gravity has been proven in demonstrative experiments, some you could even perform at home.

>>9484360
Conspiracy is a criminal charge.
What crime has been committed and under what code and subsection?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/587027-the-10-games-or-so-the-nfl-may-have-fixed-in-the-2010-season

>>9484369
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a criminal charge.
Conspiracy in and of itself is not criminal.

>>9484367
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

See >>9484347

Why fake it?
Guess Metabunk didn't notice the 2 dimensional copy pasta towers missing half the metal structure with 50 year of reference photos on Google images.

"Gravity" can be explained by density.
The heliocentric model of the universe and the Baal Earth meme can t be explained without the theory of "Gravity".

What museum/university/science exhibit has a working version of Cavendish s experiment that was used to calculate the gravitational constant?
The Science Delusion TED talk goes into the ever changing numbers and how they were dealt with, as well as NDT on Star talk radio (What is gravity) are very interesting.


https://youtu.be/udn_9KPEZK0

https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

https://youtu.be/Efh4bu4rcbs

https://youtu.be/OVHYCr3FTSc

https://youtu.be/JUjZwf9T-cs

>>9478017
>THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!
I agree, OP. Flat earth should be an instaban.

>>9484350
You do realize that there are hundreds if not thousands of Michael J. Smiths in the US? They don't even look that similar (if you're not face-blind or desperately grasping at straws, that is)

>>9484378
If they weren't dead and alive
If it was faked
What crime would have been committed under what US code?

If it just a show, no crime.
No need to change names.
I don t think they considered Google in the 80s

>>9484369
>>9484350

>>9478017
>Flat Earth spam is now succeeded by Newton's Third Law Cannot Exist in Vacuums spam

>>9478017
>tfw this thread has more than zero replies

Fake science/math thread?

Pic related.

>>9484395
No kidding
I had the science board telling me that 2 dimensional copy pasta towers were proof of an impossible property of a body water that can t be observed

https://youtu.be/da6XAzhcn_E

>>9484387
>>9484292

>>9484394
60% of the posts are samefagging spam by 1 or 2 schizos.
I think things like flat earth tick off the dormant OCD in people. A type of anger-inducing militant stupidity that gets in your face hard. That's why these threads always get to +300 posts.
also sage

>>9484402
I mean I accept the fact that the Earth is probably round as lots of smart people have said that all my life (since 1998).

But if someone brought me to orbit and gave me conclusive evidence that the world was flat, I wouldn't sperg out and go REE REE SCIENCE BITCH!! I would engage the guy's argument and then change my view.

Round earthers are as bad as militant atheists. Unless you've been to orbit, shut up.

>>9484408
>conclusive evidence that the world was flat
HahaHA nigger, just measure 2 shadows at 2 locations several hundred km apart north-south, like wtf , make a faucaut pendulum haha observe the movement of the movement of the sun/moon/stars like haha subhuman double-digit IQ fuck haHAhaAHha just buy a boat and measure how much it dissapears behind the horizon like HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA, like flY in a fucking plane you poorfags shit kys.

>>9484402
I've seen a couple of this convex water guy's threads deleted, but it always takes well over 100 replies before that happens. I guess since he isn't the OP of this one it might manage to stick around until auto sage

>>9484408
>Unless you've been to orbit, shut up
This implies going to orbit and seeing a round or flat Earth is conclusive evidence. Yet Flat-Earthers argue that windows in planes flex at altitude and make the horizon looked curved. Same would be said for a spaceship's widows.

There is already an array of proofs so large it's bewildering that Flat Earth has any followers. It's more a testament to the failures of the human mind to accept reality, than the efficacy of the evidence and proofs of round Earth.

Or there's a pack of trolls laughing at all of this.

>>9484426
Two won't do it. You need three to get a *rate* of change.

>>9484741
>"It's more a testament to the failures of the human mind to accept reality."

A-fucking-men!

>>9484329
the models is being worked on but the basic concept is that we are seeing a refraction of the sun and moon through atmospheric plasma. The moon is seen upside down in the southern hemisphere because its refraction when viewed south of the equator (pic attached) it would appear upside down.
>star trails at 5:30
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=360&v=RkDqdoINhYI

>>9484444
>quads

it cant be debunked like google maps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bol8vZ7pcu8

>>9484402
all flat-friends on /sci/ are internet trolls. don't reply to them, unless you're bored

>>9484387
>>9484772
>>9484764
>>9484401
>>9484391
>>9484387
>>9484369
>>9484350
>>9484347
>>9484345
>>9484341
>>9484339
>>9484333
>>9484329
>>9484297
>>9484292
>>9483238
>>9482820
>>9482812
>>9482769
>>9480825
>>9480496
>>9480428
>>9480407
>>9480356
>>9480280
>>9479787
>>9479785
>>9479768
>>9479722
>>9478333
>>9478017

why do you do this?

> does nothing but spampost flat earth videos
> calls any and all evidence against him fake
> is unable to carry an argument, instead just cold replies with unrelated flat earth videos and leading questions
> believes all satellites are balloons because they inflated a sphere in orbit once
> believes that you need a scientific experiment to prove what is obviously shown in numerous photographs in videos
> does not understand how momentum works
> does not understand how perspective works
> does nothing but samefag and reply to himself in an effort to make it seem like there is more than one schizo in the thread
> ignores any arguments against him

can we ban this fellow?

>>9485246
Flat Earth is /sci/'s Godwin's Law.

>>9478096
A rocket expelling a jet stream without moving in the opposite direction would violate conservation of momentum.

>>9484333
Gotta say it took me a while to realize the problem with this method but I got there.
Basically, the assumption is that the object is moving roughly perpendicular to the viewer, and the viewer is not moving relative to the start position or the object.

The flat earth model has nothing to worry about in the second part, but the heliocentric model does, because the majority of the Moon's movement in the night sky is due to Earth's rotation. The speed used in that video (taken from timeanddate.com) is also the apparent ground speed of the Moon, the speed at which you would have to travel due west to keep the Moon at the same point in the sky, not the speed the Moon is actually moving.

So while in the flat earth model this does give a reasonable method for measuring the size of the Moon, it doesn't disprove the heliocentric model because the basic assumption the method is based on is broken.

>>9478988
>>9483033
>>9483052
>footage
video isn't made on film by the foot any more, Grandpa

>>9478017
Throwing a stone of a skateboard pushes you back. That's the opposite reactions. The force of the stone accelerating away from you. Not the stone hitting the ground or leaving your hand. If your arm fell off with the throw you would go even further due to the extra mass.

>>9487133
Just generalise
>this

>>9483133
>ONE SINGLE VIDEO FROM NASA
You can buy vacuum chambers online. You could do the experiment yourself.

>>9478017
>but there is no atmosphere to aid in that equal and opposite reaction

What about the exhaust gasses moving out of the rocket engine at high velocity... don't you think that counts?

>>9480428
>bullet is fast so nothing go faster than bullet

>>9484741
>That pic
Evolution in action.

>>9482982
Underrated

Here's another one for you actual, literal braindead drooling children that can't seem to understand even basic babby concepts.

Say you have two balls. I know, that must be hard for you, but try. One ball is styrofoam. One ball is lead. They are exactly the same size, and have exactly the same surface finish applied. Aerodynamically, they are identical. You throw the styrofoam ball and the lead ball at 5 miles an hour. Do you apply the same amount of force to each ball when you throw it? No, of fucking course not. They're aerodynamically identical, and so they push on the air the exact same amount. The air pushes back at you the exact same amount. But the lead ball is harder to throw and requires more force and that isn't due to the air pushing on it whatsoever. I bet even this example that even a half drunk chimp can understand is still somehow too much for you to handle.

>You'll never be as retarded as OP

Isn't there technically an "atmosphere" that is so sparse it practically has no effect, but there is still something there, so technically Newton's 3rd law can still take affect

>>9488815
we are in a plasma dome
>mfw fe were right
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-supersonic-plasma-jets.html

https://plasmasphere.nasa.gov/

>>9478127
You are assuming that the stream of exhaust gas comes to rest, which requires the opposite reaction you are talking about. It doesn't. It just keeps going at the same velocity with which it was expelled from the rocket.

>>9488815
Yes. The ISS for instance uses the solar panels also as a solar sail to help counteract the slight drag at its orbital height. That however, is inadequate. It still uses visiting vehicles to give little boosts once in a while.

>>9489035
if you think there are people living on this in outer space you need to think for yourself and not believe everything you are told

>>9489060
I think you should visit your 1st grade classes that you skipped.

>>9481250
I'm going to turn this into a reaction image. I dont know how, but I will find a way.

>>9478017

>>9478024
>>9478033
>>9478052

You mean like pic???

At first glimpse that thought makes sense. At second it doesn't.

So the gas can spread, yeas but since its vaccuum it can spread so far so big so soon, that it couldnt have any effect. Except it hits on something

Also the gas and the and flames are, in a certain way and meaning, part of the rocket.
Like the magnets to the car and whatever they are fixed on.
Just reverse the pic, put the magnets left and make them push eachother.
It won't work.
But sure flames and gases that are attached to a rocket in vacuum will work....
In an atmosphere it obviously works because the gases are hitting something (other gases; air)
In a small vacuum chamber it works, too. Because the gases cant spread too far and will most likely hit the wall and fill the vacuum up with somethign very quick.
Try to fly a tiny modelrocket in a HUGE vacuum chamber...
On a scale 1:100 or probably 1:1000/10k with the rocket right in the centre. (while 1 is the rocket size).
Also another condition: The gases aren't allowed to fill up 1-5% of the vacuum.
My stomach tells me to go for 3% maximum.

Also keep an instrument to check the time it takes for the gases to reach a wall of the chamber and some stopclock added to it.

>>9489599
>So the gas can spread, yeas but since its vaccuum it can spread so far so big so soon, that it couldnt have any effect.
Says who? You're obviously just hypothesizing, but you need evidence.

Gas has mass. Rapidly expanding gas has velocity. Despite being relatively low mass, the high velocity creates a greater force.

>150 replies to the most obvious bait thread in this year

>>9487199
Sure. Given enough of my valuable time, I could also build a tiny little rocket the size of a pin. Or, NASA could just buy a toy rocket and test it in their chamber that was built with tax dollars.

>>9493711
vacuum is space isn't the same as vacuum on earth for one
Also microgravity vs earth gravity
what you're trying to see wouldn't be apparent, you could just say "fake, it's not a vacuum"

>>9478032
the absolute state of /sci/
Please end your miserable existence

>>9489293
Atta'boy r*ddit

>>9493711
Your "valuable time" you spend shitposting flat earth nonsense on 4chan?

>>9489753
OP checkin in here, feels good man

>>9487121
>duurrrrrr

>>9478017
>somebody please enlighten me if im being a brainlet
Nope, can't. This is two levels below "brainlet." Delete this thread.

>>9478017
the opposite reaction isn't the atmosphere or lack thereof in this case, it's the resistance of the mass being pushed

>>9496517
I've not posted any such thing. I interjected with a valid point. All they have to do is hang a toy rocket horizontally from a string in the vacuum chamber, and simultaneously drop a bunch of feathers and balls. I know they could still lie, but the more chaotic the scene, the more difficult it would be to avoid editing mistakes. I take the 3rd law on faith, and I'm aware of the fact. You're a retard that takes it on faith believing you possess some ultimate truth.

>>9478017
>space is vacuum therefore no way for planets to pull things in
>gravity is a hoax

>>9478017

When the fuel explodes it presses against the rocket, I mean makes sense don't it. It's an explosion. But the OTHER side of the rocket chamber is open. So.... the explosion can't press against it! So it just pushes the rocket along.