there is no reason why this works

File: 23 KB, 852x480, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:32:22 2020 No.11577703 [Reply] [Original]

there is no reason why this works

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:36:04 2020 No.11577710

>>11577703
This equal and opposite reaction shit is stupid

Ok dumbfucks, if the rocket goes one way and the exhaust goes the other way, and they are equal, why doesn't the exhaust travel anywhere like the rocket? Rocket exhaust should travel in a line opposite the rocket's path and hit the earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:36:45 2020 No.11577711 >>11577703 It does work though, by continuously accelerating, you maintain a crude form of gravity onboard the rocket and reduce travel time. It does need a lot of fuel and a carefully orchestrated de-acceleration burn though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:37:15 2020 No.11577713 They carry tanks of oxygen alongside fuel. The furl uses itself(the already ejected combusted gas) to propelling the rocket in a vaccum.

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:40:34 2020 No.11577718

>>11577711
>gravity is pressing back on the spacecraft
>it doesn't go the other way

What? Is the gravity less of a force than what's moving the rocket forward? But why is it there? If I throw a baseball in one direction why is some of it being converted back to gravity in the other direction. Who makes up this shit

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:41:12 2020 No.11577719

>>11577710

Oh that, initialy, especialy when the rocket is on the ground, the exhaust is definitly hitting the Earth but when the rocket is at sufficient enough speeds, the rocket+exhaust have a great enough forward momentum that the exhaust wont hit the Earth but will travel allong the path of the rocket albeit much slower.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:43:07 2020 No.11577725 >>11577713 >They carry tanks of oxygen alongside fuel. If there's a leak fuel will get into your air supply Use yourself and propel from this thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:44:32 2020 No.11577729 >>11577719 I can flip this around When the exhaust is at sufficient speeds, it has a great enough forward momentum that the rocket won't go to space but travel with the exhaust

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 11:45:00 2020 No.11577730 >>11577725 They carry extra oxygen is there specifically for that purpose because there's no air in space.

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 15:17:55 2020 No.11578311 [DELETED]

File: 56 KB, 1300x864, rocket launch arc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

When you use logic, reason, and actual real science (that's real physics - not math which if you rely too much on makes you extremely gullible and limits your understanding), then you realize rockets only work (definition of work: to propel themselves forward) inside an atmosphere.

They don't and can't work in a real vacuum (space).

So will a rocket which "works in space" (propels the craft forward) ever be invented? No. No such technology can ever exist. Any claims of such tech existing is a fraud and a lie. You want to believe in a fraud and a lie?

>inb4 you parrot "newtons 3rd law!" like an NPC without any thought involved
That law isn't in dispute here. Quoting it to "prove" rockets "work in space" shows you don't grasp the fundamental problem here. The 3rd law is 100% correct. When asteroids floating in the vacuum of space crashes into each other, the 3rd law applies. Likewise, the law applies to objects interacting on the ground on Earth, underwater, and in the sky. The 3rd law is real, but it doesn't "do" anything for a rocket engine fired in a perfect vacuum.

You see, the atmosphere gets thinner at higher elevation until it disappears completely (out in space). That's the issue is here! And you can't get around that issue. Parroting "newtons's 3rd law!" or throwing math equations around, doesn't magically make the issue go away. That's just you avoiding to deal with reality. Man up and stop avoiding reality :)

If you're currently under the "rockets work in space! xd!" spell they cast on you through the entertainment industry and educational system (the indoctrination system), and you want to break free from that spell and shatter the illusion - then see these two educational videos (they play inside your browser):

First vid: https://files.catbox.moe/dl9ldw.webm
Second (also important): https://files.catbox.moe/so2rrt.mp4

Once you know that stuff - then you know beyond any doubt rocket technology will never be viable outside of Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 16:38:16 2020 No.11578597 >>11577703 You not understanding why something works is not an argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 16:39:37 2020 No.11578602 >>11577710 What? It fucking does

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 16:52:59 2020 No.11578634 >>11578311 What mental illness causes this

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 17:24:36 2020 No.11578736 >>11577729 Holy shit you're so fucking retarded you don't even understand classical physics. Yes the situation you described would be possible if both the exhaust and the rocket were travelling BACKWARDS at high speeds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 17:24:47 2020 No.11578737 >>11578311 why are you doing this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 17:47:02 2020 No.11578816 >>11578736 >exhaust and rocket traveling the same direction backwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 17:54:04 2020 No.11578832 >>11578602 Yeah for like a few hundred meters and then it putters out because your theories are gay

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 18:05:40 2020 No.11578869 File: 258 KB, 785x1000, 1573272757691.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11578737 >noooo! don't drop redpills exposing the hoax of rockets in space! noo! noo! people aren't supposed to know!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 18:06:37 2020 No.11578872 >>11578832 >Yeah for like a few hundred meters and then it putters out because your theories are gay No? It doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 19:25:54 2020 No.11579100 File: 519 KB, 1422x800, 3124234234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11578872 Rocket goes to space, exhaust should travel an equal distance but instead trails behind the rocket. Checkmate newton's third flaw

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 19:35:45 2020 No.11579122 >>11578311 The reason that shit looks curved is because the earth is spinning and so the path is curved between them

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 21:04:33 2020 No.11579376

>>11579100
>Rocket goes to space, exhaust should travel an equal distance but instead trails behind the rocket.
No, that would only be true if the rocket instantaneously released exhaust and then stopped, and if the change in mass of the rocket is exactly equal to the mass of the exhaust. Since the rocket keeps pushing out more exhaust over time, it will travel much farther than any one particle of exhaust.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 21:12:38 2020 No.11579390 >>11577703 Well played OP. Your bait shouldn't work but it did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 21:34:12 2020 No.11579453 >>11578872 They do (well, it's more than a few hundred meters), because the atmosphere gets thinner and then disappears completely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 21:39:07 2020 No.11579470 >>11579453 What does the atmosphere have to do with anything?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 21:59:16 2020 No.11579527 >>11579470 rockets dont work in space

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 22:04:39 2020 No.11579538

First we all need to be on the same page on basics of the theory of relativity. Essentially, this theory seeks to explain how two events that appear to be occuring at the same time for one observer can appear to be occurring at different times for another observer. The theory states that this occurs due to the passage of time being relative to the motion of the observer. To put it in laymans terms, if you were to go really fast you would experience time faster than someone who is standing still. This is how two observers can perceive time differently

So how does this apply to futa?

Well, lets imagine a situation to explain how this works. Lets say that we have two people observing some futa hentai. One of the observers believes that it is gay while the other does not. Both people are observing the same event in different ways due to the fact that gay itself is relative to the individual observer. I call this theory the relativity of gayety.

The reason that this occurs is due to everyone having a different psychological response to viewing futa. People that can only see it as being gay see a man that has boobs while people that dont see it as being gay see a woman with a dick. That may seem like the same thing at first but that distinction makes all the difference. By having the base for futa being a guy and then just adding some boobs is pretty undeniably gay. However, a woman with a dick is not really gay at all, as is postulated in the infamous 2.19% theory, but in this situation it is even less gay as futa characters also have boobs and puss while traps do not.

Now the reason why all of this is important is because since this is all relative to the observer it is easy to make futa not gay in your mind by changing your position of observation. How you do this is by no longer viewing futa as being a man with boobs, but rather as chicks with dicks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 22:13:43 2020 No.11579554 >>11579527 That doesn't answer my question. How is the atmosphere necessary? Why does Newton's third law not work in space?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 22:23:52 2020 No.11579573 >>11579554 >Why does Newton's third law not work in space? It does. The third law isn't in question. See: >>11578311

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 22:29:48 2020 No.11579591 >>11579573 >The third law isn't in question. So then pushing mass into space creates a propulsive force in the opposite direction.

Anonymous Sat Apr 18 23:17:56 2020 No.11579679

>>11579100
>Rocket goes to space, exhaust should travel an equal distance but instead trails behind the rocket. Checkmate newton's third flaw

What do you mean "exhaust should travel an equal distance"? Newton's third law talks about force pairs - there's no mention of distance or displacement

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 23:19:39 2020 No.11579683 >>11579573 If I wasn't in quarantine, I could make a little spring-loaded canister and stick it in my lab's vacuum chamber and show you that conservation of momentum holds in an environment without atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 18 23:25:18 2020 No.11579700 >>11579679 Technically he's correct, but only if the rocket shoots out exhaust in one instant from rest and the mass of the exhaust is equal to the change in the mass of the rocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 00:03:39 2020 No.11579789 >>11578311 What about this analogy? >>11577713

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 01:34:06 2020 No.11580004 >be sitting in space in a chair >be holding a tennis ball >throw the tennis ball >tennis ball goes forward, i move backward >i am the rocket >the tennis ball is the gas shooting out of my engine it's really not hard

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 01:38:01 2020 No.11580009 >>11580004 Does the velocity of the fuel being ejected matter or only the mass?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 01:49:38 2020 No.11580032 >>11580009 both matter. this page lays it out well: http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm tl;dr low mass, high velocity exhaust gives you the best thrust

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 01:58:28 2020 No.11580048 >>11580032 or well it would be better to say that, in terms of actually getting anywhere with a rocket, you want higher velocity, because that's your thrust. increasing your velocity safely is what you want. you do that by decreasing your fuel mass

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 02:14:27 2020 No.11580107

>>11579683
A spring isn't a rocket engine, and your spring would be attached to something, it wouldn't be floating freely in the middle of the chamber so the physics wouldn't be the same (as a rocket in space). The third law DOES apply in a vacuum. It's not in dispute. But it's irrelevant to mention as far as rocket engines fired in space is concerned. Fire a rocket engine inside an atmosphere and you get plenty of thrust. Fire it at very high altitude where the atmosphere is thinner and the thurst is lower. Fire it without any atmosphere at all and the thrust is zero.

>>11577713
>They carry tanks of oxygen
Yes (or so we're told at least), but behind the little "atmosphere" that's created behind the rocket, behind that there's nothing - a perfect vacuum. Thus the generated "atmosphere" would simply be pushed (by the rocket engine) into that vacuum.

It's not a perfect analogy because the physical conditions aren't exactly the same, but the lack of an atmosphere behind the exhaust gasses of the rocket is sort of equivalent to boat which has a sail but the sail isn't attached to the boat and is merely floating above the boat: wind blowing (the rocket engine pushing) against the sail (the exhaust gasses) would simply cause the sail to be pushed away and the boat would remain stationary.

>>11579591
See above reply.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 02:27:35 2020 No.11580153

>>11580107
>Thus the generated "atmosphere" would simply be pushed (by the rocket engine) into that vacuum.
So you're saying rockets work in space?
If the rocket engine can push something away in a vacuum it's also pushing itself away from it's exhaust.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 02:31:02 2020 No.11580163

>>11577718
Gravity as a force is dependent on your location to a mass and not on anything else. By definition a vehicle must be able to accelerate upwards by at least more than one G to be able to get off the ground. In fact if you build a rocket with a pad TWR which is too close (like 1.01 or something) it will barely accelerate from an Earth reference frame and go nowhere. It's called gravity losses

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 02:31:26 2020 No.11580165

>>11580107
>your spring would be attached to something

What if I drop it? It'll still obey conservation of momentum in free-fall. No promises that you'd get clean slo-mo video from my Google Pixel 3 though.

>Fire it without any atmosphere at all and the thrust is zero.

So where does the extra momentum in the exhaust-rocket system come from? What you're describing right now is called a 'free energy machine'. Go build yourself the world's largest vacuum chamber and become a trillionaire if you believe your hypothesis is true.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 02:33:45 2020 No.11580170

>>11580107
I mean, technically a spring can be a rocket engine if you snip it off once it expends all of its potential energy and starts to slow back down. That's basically how slingshots work. Otherwise you'd be like that lady who watermelon'd her face on that reality tv show

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:01:03 2020 No.11580255 >>11580107 wrong, rockets perform worse in atmosphere than they do in vacuum

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:04:17 2020 No.11580265

>>11580153
Learn to read.

>Thus the generated "atmosphere" would simply be pushed (by the rocket engine) into that vacuum.
That little ball of atmosphere which the rocket engine creates is pushed and dispersed into the perfect vacuum behind and around it, resulting in the rocket itself not moving.

>>11580255
You are exactly incorrect. You believe in a lie. It doesn't matter how absurd a lie is, once people are religiously attached to it they believe the lie is a truth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:06:28 2020 No.11580274 >>11580265 wrong

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:07:23 2020 No.11580278

>>11580165
>So where does the extra momentum in the exhaust-rocket system come from? What you're describing right now is called a 'free energy machine'. Go build yourself the world's largest vacuum chamber and become a trillionaire if you believe your hypothesis is true.
??????????

I've described no such thing. Your comment is one big non-sequitur.

>>11580274
Nope.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:16:43 2020 No.11580316

>>11580265
So if I strap a rocket engine to myself backwards (so that it's exhaust is facing me) it could push me through space? I mean that's what it's doing to it's exhaust according to you right?
Also doesnt the rocket engine just push the earth+ atmosphere further into space when it's launched within the atmosphere?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:19:28 2020 No.11580324

>>11580278
>I've described no such thing. Your comment is one big non-sequitur.

You start with a sealed gas container in a vacuum, at rest. You open one side of it and the gas rushes out.

Actual physics predicts that the canister goes one way and the gas goes the other, and the total momentum stays the same (zero).

Your theory predicts that the gas rushes out, but the canister stays still. In that situation, momentum (and therefore energy) has been created out of nowhere. Free energy machine. Go build one right now.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:20:32 2020 No.11580328
File: 692 KB, 220x123, 28364684.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11580278
He isn't. If you pass a fluid with mass through an area at a velocity you get a thing called momentum flux, kg * m/s. This is the same unit as force. If you had a machine in space with a one square meter nozzle spraying a kilogram of water every second out the back at one meter per second in a straight line, the nozzle and other fluid contacting components would experience a net one Newton of force opposite the direction of that flow. If there is nothing to counteract this force then the device will begin accelerating at X meters per second per second where 1 Newton = (mass in kg) * X

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:22:39 2020 No.11580345 >>11580328 Only if the water has something to push away from though. Have you not been paying attention?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:23:26 2020 No.11580351
File: 69 KB, 550x441, 97-550-v2_orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11580278
You can also observe momentum flux in the fact that pipe joints, which must decelerate water on one axis and accelerate it on another, require bracing because the resulting force can be quite large.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:24:32 2020 No.11580360 >>11580345 The water is the thing pushing away. You, the rocket, are pushing on your exhaust and your exhaust pushes on you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:24:54 2020 No.11580362 >>11580316 the exhaust would push off the rocket and push off of you and try to push you and the rocket apart if you dodged all the exhaust then you're describing the traditional rocket launch escape towers

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:32:13 2020 No.11580387 >>11580362 >then you're describing the traditional rocket launch escape towers Which are just small rockets themselves and therefore also dont work in space.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:33:46 2020 No.11580396
File: 398 KB, 2048x946, lawacydllu37y1agbsnm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11580316
If a rocket is pointing at you you'll be pushed on by its exhaust, but that doesn't necessarily have to have any influence on the rocket itself. That's the disconnect where people keep thinking rockets need a substrate to travel through.

Now granted, if a rocket nozzle is SUPER close to the ground such that its exhaust is having some trouble escaping to the side, I would imagine that an area of high pressure could temporarily establish in a zone under that nozzle which increases the resulting upwards force. Unless you're designing for it it'll probably destroy your rocket, and since orbital boosters are already towards their design limits you would want to launch with a place for that exhaust to go. For lighter duty like landing stages low on fuel it's probably fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:33:47 2020 No.11580395 >>11580360 No, in space I would remain motionless and simply push water away from me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:35:30 2020 No.11580408 >>11580395 From a reference frame which was static to your machine before you turned it on, the water would be going one way and you would be going the other.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:37:51 2020 No.11580421 >>11580408 From a reference frame which was static to my machine before I turned it on, the water would be going one way and I would remain motionless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:40:06 2020 No.11580431 >>11580395 >>11580324 When are you gonna patent your new free energy machine? Seems risky giving your monumental scientific discoveries away on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 03:46:04 2020 No.11580455 >>11580431 A free energy machine that runs on fuel? Doesn't seem like free energy to me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 04:26:42 2020 No.11580555 >>11580455 If you can find a form of 'fuel' that adds momentum to a closed system, then yes, that is a free energy machine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 04:36:41 2020 No.11580581 >>11580555 1. Name a fuel that doesnt add energy to a closed system it is introduced to. 2. Closed systems dont exist in reality.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 04:45:17 2020 No.11580600
File: 56 KB, 1300x864, rocket launch arc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

When you use logic, reason, and actual real science (that's real physics - not math which if you rely too much on makes you extremely gullible and limits your understanding), then you realize rockets only work (definition of work: to propel themselves forward) inside an atmosphere.

They don't and can't work in a real vacuum (space).

So will a rocket which "works in space" (propels the craft forward) ever be invented? No. No such technology can ever exist. Any claims of such tech existing is a fraud and a lie. You want to believe in a fraud and a lie?

>inb4 you parrot "newtons 3rd law!" like an NPC without any thought involved
That law isn't in dispute here. Quoting it to "prove" rockets "work in space" shows you don't grasp the fundamental problem here. The 3rd law is 100% correct. When asteroids floating in the vacuum of space crashes into each other, the 3rd law applies. Likewise, the law applies to objects interacting on the ground on Earth, underwater, and in the sky. The 3rd law is real, but it doesn't "do" anything for a rocket engine fired in a perfect vacuum.

You see, the atmosphere gets thinner at higher elevation until it disappears completely (out in space). That's the issue is here! And you can't get around that issue. Parroting "newtons's 3rd law!" or throwing math equations around, doesn't magically make the issue go away. That's just you avoiding to deal with reality. Man up and stop avoiding reality :)

If you're currently under the "rockets work in space! xd!" spell they cast on you through the entertainment industry and educational system (the indoctrination system), and you want to break free from that spell and shatter the illusion - then see these two educational videos (they play inside your browser):

First vid: https://files.catbox.moe/dl9ldw.webm
Second (also important): https://files.catbox.moe/so2rrt.mp4

Once you know that stuff - then you know beyond any doubt rocket technology will never be viable outside of Earth.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 04:49:58 2020 No.11580605 [DELETED]

File: 334 KB, 1624x1868, illustration.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Guys, regarding this >>11580107

For those of you who have difficulty reading and who arrive at totally strange conclusions (after reading that and similar posts) like this anon: >>11580153 and this anon here: >>11580165 (anons who seem to not have understood at all what they read),

I made this picture just for you, so you can see it all clearly instead of trying to comprehend through reading.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 04:51:58 2020 No.11580609

>>11580600
ah yes, the same "muh logic" that leads people to believe 0.999...!=1 and reject all mathematical arguments because "muh brain cant handle it but ur the dummy".

come back to me with mathematics, not schizo ramblings. same goes for the 0.999...!=1 crowd.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 04:55:21 2020 No.11580614
File: 334 KB, 1624x1868, illustration.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Guys, regarding this >>11580107

For those of you who have difficulty reading and who arrive at totally strange conclusions (after reading that and similar posts) like this anon: >>11580153 and this anon here: >>11580165 (anons who seem to not have understood at all what they read),

I made this picture just for you, so you can see it all clearly instead of trying to comprehend through reading.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:00:33 2020 No.11580619 so mass can be ejected out of a rocket engine as exhaust due to a controlled explosion within the rocket, but said exhaust does not provide thrust?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:03:24 2020 No.11580621 >>11580619 IF it's in a vacuum, yes. Because said ejected mass only hits the vacuum, not an atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:05:12 2020 No.11580626 >>11580614 So you henerate an atmosphere behind the rocket, said atmosphere will disperse rapidly into space around it, but the rocket two metric feet from the rapidly expanding atmosphere is unaffected?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:05:26 2020 No.11580629 >>11580581 >1. Name a fuel that doesnt add energy to a closed system it is introduced to. All of them? It's the first law of thermodynamics. >2. Closed systems dont exist in reality. So what's adding momentum into the system?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:07:47 2020 No.11580631 >>11580621 so the impulse of the system is not conserved.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:23:34 2020 No.11580662 >>11580631 It's conserved in the exhaust. >>11580629 >All of them? It's the first law of thermodynamics. read above >So what's adding momentum into the system? The combustion of fuel?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:24:00 2020 No.11580663 >>11580614 Jesus tap dancing Christ Americans are retarded

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:28:22 2020 No.11580671

>>11580662
>The combustion of fuel?

Combusting fuel does not allow you to conjure momentum out of nowhere. The momentum that your car gains when accelerating down the street is balanced by the Earth gaining momentum in the opposite direction.

>read above

Didn't help. You asked "name a fuel that doesn't add energy to a closed system it is introduced to."

There are two issues with that. One being that you can't add momentum to a closed system. And two being that it wouldn't be a closed system to begin with if you're 'introducing' something to it.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:34:14 2020 No.11580679

>>11580671
>And two being that it wouldn't be a closed system to begin with if you're 'introducing' something to it.
Now you're getting it. It becomes really nonsensical when you realize a closed system is just a rhetorical trick to explain a model; not really something which has any practical implications (because it does not exist).
>The momentum that your car gains when accelerating down the street is balanced by the Earth gaining momentum in the opposite direction.
So if the car has nothing to push off of it wouldn't accelerate right? That makes sense. Glad we're in agreement here.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:38:17 2020 No.11580688

>>11580679
>Now you're getting it. It becomes really nonsensical when you realize a closed system is just a rhetorical trick to explain a model; not really something which has any practical implications (because it does not exist).

A rocket ship in deep space is effectively a closed system when it comes to heat and momentum. There are small in/out fluxes, but they're negligible. The limitations of closed systems as a model would not explain any of the bullshit physics you're trying to propose in this thread.

>So if the car has nothing to push off of it wouldn't accelerate right? That makes sense. Glad we're in agreement here.

Cars are not thrusters. Your engine does not accelerate by throwing high velocity mass in the opposite direction.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:42:39 2020 No.11580693

>>11580688
>A rocket ship in deep space is effectively a closed system when it comes to heat and momentum.
Forgetting the premise of the thread aree we?
>you're currently under the "rockets work in space! xd!" spell they cast on you through the entertainment industry and educational system (the indoctrination system)

>Combusting fuel does not allow you to conjure momentum out of nowhere
Okay, it's the combustion of fuel paired with the nozzle of the container it's stored in.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:44:42 2020 No.11580697 >>11580614 So pic related would work? https://ibb(dot) co/PxL5fY6 (can't upload image directly due to my IP being range banned for some reason)

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:45:37 2020 No.11580699

>>11580693
>Okay, it's the combustion of fuel paired with the nozzle of the container it's stored in.

I don't understand your fixation on the 'nozzle'. It's irrelevant to the physics here.

You cannot conjure momentum out of nowhere. That is equivalent to a free energy machine. If you really believed any of this bullshit was true, you would be building one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:49:08 2020 No.11580703 >>11580699 >You cannot conjure momentum out of nowhere. It doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from the energy stored in the fuel. How are you not getting this?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 05:54:08 2020 No.11580711

>>11580703
>It doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from the energy stored in the fuel. How are you not getting this?

Because that's not how fuel works. Fuel does not change how much energy it has depending on how fast you're going when it starts 'burning'.

A rocket ship that only imparts momentum to its exhaust would add the same amount of momentum in any reference frame. That doesn't work because kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2, which means your rocket ship is literally generating exponentially more energy as it gets faster. Does that sound correct to you?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:08:08 2020 No.11580721

>>11580711
>Fuel does not change how much energy it has depending on how fast you're going when it starts 'burning'
Never said it did.
>That doesn't work because kinetic energy is (1/2)mv^2, which means your rocket ship is literally generating exponentially more energy as it gets faster. Does that sound correct to you?
Yes it does. that's exaclty what the equation says: ceterus paribus, energy will increase with the square of speed. But that is beside the point.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:17:43 2020 No.11580733 [DELETED]

>>11580721
>Never said it did.

Okay, let's do a thought experiment here. You're standing on a rocket ship (900kg) in deep space and eject your 'fuel' (100kg) at 10m/s out the front of your ship. Your ship doesn't accelerate at all because this universe uses schizo-physics.

In your reference frame, the exhaust leaves with kinetic energy (1/2)(100kg)(10m/s)^2 = 5kJ. Let's say that 'comes from the energy stored in the fuel'.

But person B on a different planet is watching you. From their reference frame, your ship is flying by at 1000m/s. The ship ejects its exhaust, and the exhaust is now going 1010m/s. In person B's reference frame, the ship started with (1/2)(1000kg)(1000m/s)^2 = 500MJ. But the exhaust leaves with kinetic energy (1/2)(100kg)(1010m/s)^2 = 51.05MJ.

Your 'fuel' just gained 1000x more energy density because a different person was looking at it. This is why your theory of physics is bullshit - it's a free energy machine.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:21:21 2020 No.11580741

>>11580721
>Never said it did.

Okay, let's do a thought experiment here. You're standing on a rocket ship (900kg) in deep space and eject your 'fuel' (100kg) at 10m/s out the front of your ship. Your ship doesn't accelerate at all because this universe uses schizo-physics.

In your reference frame, the exhaust leaves with kinetic energy (1/2)(100kg)(10m/s)^2 = 5kJ. Let's say that 'comes from the energy stored in the fuel'.

But person B on a different planet is watching you. From their reference frame, your ship is flying by at 1000m/s. The ship ejects its exhaust, and the exhaust is now going 1010m/s. In person B's reference frame, the ship started with (1/2)(1000kg)(1000m/s)^2 = 500MJ. But the exhaust leaves with kinetic energy (1/2)(100kg)(1010m/s)^2 = 51.05MJ and the ship has 450MJ. Total kinetic energy = 501.05MJ, which means the 'fuel' added 1050kJ to the system.

Your 'theory of physics' means that fuel gets 200x more energy dense because a different person is looking at it. That's why it's bullshit.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:32:22 2020 No.11580758

>>11580733
>Your 'fuel' just gained 1000x more energy density because a different person was looking at it. This is why your theory of physics is bullshit - it's a free energy machine.
What you just posted is the accepted view of mainstream science. That the total kinetic energy of a system changes dependant on the observer.
I can step from the hood of a car moving 60mph onto the hood of another car going 60mph, but if I try that from the sidewalk I will get launched by the kinetic energy of the car.
This doesn't make cars free energy machines.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:34:37 2020 No.11580765 >>11580758 >>11580741

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:40:55 2020 No.11580777

>>11580758
>What you just posted is the accepted view of mainstream science. That the total kinetic energy of a system changes dependant on the observer.

The total kinetic energy of the system /did/ change between reference frames, but that's not the problem. The problem is that person B saw your fuel add 1MJ to the system, while /you/ saw your exhaust add 5kJ. That is free energy, and the 'accepted view of mainstream science' is that energy is conserved.

Let's say that instead of it being a rocket ship, it's an asteroid about to hit a planet. 'Fuel' is consumed and half the mass of the asteroid is shot out from the front at 10m/s.

If the asteroid was going at 25m/s, the 'fuel' added about a dynamite stick's worth of explosive energy. If the asteroid was going at 10000m/s, the 'fuel' added a bunker buster's worth of explosive energy. At 100km/s, the 'fuel' added an extra nuke's worth of energy. This is not allowed in the rules of the universe.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 06:59:04 2020 No.11580805

>>11580777
>This is not allowed in the rules of the universe.
Well according to 1/2mv2 this is not only allowed, but expected. Since from the the point of reference of the planet, the asteroid has different velocities before launch, so any (linear) increase in velocity gained by burnig fuel would result in an exponential increase of kinetic energy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 07:00:06 2020 No.11580809 >>11580805 ...ergo rockets dont work in space

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 07:22:31 2020 No.11580852
File: 1.61 MB, 500x281, gun-animated-gif-9.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11580688
A rocket is a closed system if you always draw your bubble to contain everything you start with.

Imagine a rocket floating in a universe unaffected by gravity wells. We, the observers, watch from an inertial reference frame which is stationary to the rocket before it fires its engines. The rocket is pointed along the positive x axis ftom the origin (us).

If a 101 kg rocket fires its engines at ~1 G of acceleration, for one second in a universe with nothing else in it and attains a velocity of 9.81 meters per second such that it lost a kg of propellant in the process, it will have a momentum of 981 kg*m/s because it's 100 kgs going 1 meter per second.

There will now also be a cloud of propellant moving opposite this rocket which, when the velocity of every bit of that gas cloud is integrated with respect to mass, will have a net momentum of negative 981 kg*m/s (negative because of our arbitrarily-chosen convention for motion).

The rocket at the beginning of the experiment had a momentum of zero kg*m/s relative to our reference frame. At the end of the experiment, we still have a system with net zero momentum (a 981 kg*m/s rocket and a -981 kg*m/s gas cloud)- thus, momentum is conserved. The system ceases to be closed when you define the boundary to include only the rocket and in that case momentum is not conserved.

It is also interesting to note that so long as the rocket was lined up and is not moving on the Y or Z axes at all, you can add up the velocity-mass components of the gas cloud and will find that its net Y and Z momentum will be zero (even though individual particles fly off in all directions).

My final argument against all this dipshittery is firearms. Do you really think all that recoil is developed by the bullet pushing on the two grams of air in the barrel?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 07:39:52 2020 No.11580877
File: 757 KB, 320x240, 6265fc1a-3570-4e33-91fa-81fecfc4c385.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11580688
Cars actually do have thrusters. It's simply hard to visualize because when we imagine rockets we think of chemical rockets and it gets hard to discern fuel vs propellant.

It needs to be understood that when you're talking about vehicles, ANY VEHICLE, there is always fuel and there is always propellant.

Fuel is the thing containing energy that does work on the propellant to set it in motion.

Propellant is material which has work performed on it by the fuel to allow the vehicle to move.

In a chemical rocket, it's confusing because the fuel is also the propellant. Enthalpy is extracted from chemical fuel to heat its reaction products snd increase their pressure, causing them to shoot out the back.

HOWEVER, this is not a necessity. In a nuclear thermal rocket, for instance, the fuel is a solid core nuclear reactor and the propellant is hydrogen. The hydrogen gives no energy, only recieves it from the fuel and is accelerated out the back.

With a car, the fuel is gasoline or a battery and the propellant is indeed the earth. If it gains momentum by spinning its wheels, it is also imparting the same amount to the earth as spin in the opposite direction. The moment you hit the brakes, you decelerate the earth back to stationary in your original reference frame and the earth decelerates you back to zero as well.

Of course, if you accelerated until you had 1000 kilogram meters per second of momentum then the earth will have -1000 kilogram meters per second of momentum, and given how much the earth weighs it's an insignificant amount of velocity.

In this gif, the propellant is the canoe and the fuel is food energy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 07:59:50 2020 No.11580913 >>11577703 There's not a single video of a rocket/spacecraft flying around in a vacuum on earth.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 08:10:50 2020 No.11580932

>>11580913
there are a few experiments done, but 99% of the videos are all edited and cut up (no, seriously, basically no video shows everything in one take) and most of them don't achieve a vacuum to the same level as in space, and aside from that; in ALL of the videos the rocket engine itself is a HUGE percentage of the chamber, so when the rocket fires; it builds some atmosphere and in that moment the chamber is immediately no longer a vacuum! in total contrast to space which is basically an infinite vacuum and the rocket in space is so small in comparison as to almost not exist.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 09:27:07 2020 No.11581080

>>11580614
I love how this describes the atmosphere being a "push-off point" to generate thrust but doesn't account the same atmosphere as holding potential forward motion back (something that wouldn't exist in a vacuum either). So in a vacuum, what holds the rocket "in place" as it were when exhaust is shot out?

>>11580913
How could such an experiment be created? How big can vacuum chambers practically be? Also how would the effect of gravity be considered? I get small rockets could be made for it, but if we just put them on wheels, the you could account the "push off" being on the floor of the chamber. A rail and hanging line holding the rocket up could work, assuming negligible accounting for its effects. Could that work?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 09:42:50 2020 No.11581109 [DELETED]

>>11580932
Correct.
>How could such an experiment be created? How big can vacuum chambers practically be? Also how would the effect of gravity be considered? I get small rockets could be made for it, but if we just put them on wheels, the you could account the "push off" being on the floor of the chamber. A rail and hanging line holding the rocket up could work, assuming negligible accounting for its effects. Could that work?
It'd need to be big, but as you say the spacecraft wouldn't need to be full size. You'd perhaps need to hang the craft high up away from the floor, then drop it and turn the rockets on and see if it moves up straight away.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 09:46:58 2020 No.11581113

>>11580932
Correct.
>>11581080
>How could such an experiment be created? How big can vacuum chambers practically be? Also how would the effect of gravity be considered? I get small rockets could be made for it, but if we just put them on wheels, the you could account the "push off" being on the floor of the chamber. A rail and hanging line holding the rocket up could work, assuming negligible accounting for its effects. Could that work?
It'd need to be big, but as you say the spacecraft wouldn't need to be full size. You'd perhaps need to hang the craft high up away from the floor, then drop it and turn the rockets on and see if it moves up straight away.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 10:34:15 2020 No.11581222 >>11580852 That's a nice hypothetical. Yes, the bullet makes thegun recoil because the pressure the explosion creates pushes against the gun. How can there be pressure from an explosion in a vacuum?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 10:35:29 2020 No.11581228 >>11577703 Ok.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 10:46:16 2020 No.11581259 >>11581080 >How could such an experiment be created? >we can't test that. checkmate Then it's not science

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 10:58:47 2020 No.11581304 [DELETED]

>>11581080
>doesn't account the same atmosphere as holding potential forward motion back
It wasn't important to mention. Yes there's air resistance in an atmosphere. But out in space in with a perfect vacuum all around the craft, the fact that there's no resistance in front of the craft is meaningless and unhelpful (to the goal of the craft moving forward) since the craft won't move at all.

>in a vacuum, what holds the rocket "in place" when exhaust is shot out
Nothing "holds it in place", it just simply doesn't move. When the engine is fired, the craft remains still because the gas shot out the back isn't striking an atmosphere. Yes; the gas itself is a sort of atmosphere, but that atmosphere (the exhaust gas) is itself simply emptied out there and then disappears into the vacuum; so it's not helping the craft. If on the other hand a gigantic steel plate (lets say it has huge mass and weight and is many kilometers with width and length) were to suddenly teleport into position right behind the rocket exhaust, then the rocket WOULD move forward a bit, because for a few short moments the exhaust would be striking the steel plate (which of course would cease happening as the craft got further away from the plate).

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 11:00:23 2020 No.11581310 [DELETED]

>>11581304
>doesn't account the same atmosphere as holding potential forward motion back
It wasn't important to mention. Yes there's air resistance in an atmosphere. But out in space in with a perfect vacuum all around the craft, the fact that there's no resistance in front of the craft is meaningless and unhelpful (to the goal of the craft moving forward) since the craft won't move at all.

>in a vacuum, what holds the rocket "in place" when exhaust is shot out
Nothing "holds it in place", it just simply doesn't move. When the engine is fired, the craft remains still because the gas shot out the back isn't striking an atmosphere. Yes; the gas itself is a sort of atmosphere, but that atmosphere (the exhaust gas) is itself simply emptied out there and then disappears into the vacuum; so it's not helping the craft. If on the other hand a gigantic steel plate (lets say it has huge mass and weight and is many kilometers in width and length) were to suddenly teleport into position right behind the rocket exhaust, then the rocket WOULD move forward a bit, because for a few short moments the exhaust would be striking the steel plate (which of course would cease happening as the craft got further away from the plate).

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 11:01:25 2020 No.11581315

>>11581080
>doesn't account the same atmosphere as holding potential forward motion back
It wasn't important to mention. Yes there's air resistance in an atmosphere. But out in space in with a perfect vacuum all around the craft, the fact that there's no resistance in front of the craft is meaningless and unhelpful (to the goal of the craft moving forward) since the craft won't move at all.

>in a vacuum, what holds the rocket "in place" when exhaust is shot out
Nothing "holds it in place", it just simply doesn't move. When the engine is fired, the craft remains still because the gas shot out the back isn't striking an atmosphere. Yes; the gas itself is a sort of atmosphere, but that atmosphere (the exhaust gas) is itself simply emptied out there and then disappears into the vacuum; so it's not helping the craft. If on the other hand a gigantic steel plate (lets say it has huge mass and weight and is many kilometers in width and length) were to suddenly teleport into position right behind the rocket exhaust, then the rocket WOULD move forward a bit, because for a few short moments the exhaust would be striking the steel plate (which of course would cease happening as the craft got further away from the plate).

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 11:09:13 2020 No.11581344 >>11580107 >See above reply. This doesn't respond to my post. If Newton's third law is correct, then pushing mass into space creates a propulsive force in the opposite direction. What is wrong with this statement?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 11:14:09 2020 No.11581373 >>11581344 The fact that you keep bumping a troll thread.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 14:48:32 2020 No.11582061

>>11580805
The asteroid example only has one inertial reference frame, but your 'fuel' magically gains more energy.

Last time I'm going to say it: your physics is bullshit or it's a free energy machine. If you really believe it, then go build a generator based on it and become a trillionaire. Otherwise stfu.

>>11580852
>A rocket is a closed system if you always draw your bubble to contain everything you start with.

(you're allowed to do that)

>My final argument against all this dipshittery is firearms. Do you really think all that recoil is developed by the bullet pushing on the two grams of air in the barrel?

Ideal gas law is PV=nRT. For any 'n', you can have a massive pressure if V stays constant and T is high. That's how a gun works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 14:58:53 2020 No.11582088 >>11582061 >being this much of a retard throw a brick out of a moving car and see what happens does your arm get stronger? does the brick make a bigger hole?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 16:08:08 2020 No.11582304 >>11582088 If both the car and the brick hit the wall, the total energy of the impact does not change. ENERGY IS CONSERVED. The brick would make a bigger hole /alone/ but that's because it gains an amount of momentum equal to what the car lost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 17:38:59 2020 No.11582510 File: 126 KB, 780x749, Book Says You're Gay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11580421 Go into your basement (bedroom) and construct a model to test your theory. Publish your results so we can have a good laugh at you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 17:52:03 2020 No.11582546 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4 Cease

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 17:54:08 2020 No.11582552 >>11582546 I agree that they work in a vacuum but what if the container just filled up with co2 creating an atmosphere within it?

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 18:08:44 2020 No.11582596

>>11580614
retarded. newton's third law has nothing to do with whether there's an atmosphere or not. if I go into a vacuum and throw a tennis ball (this was mentioned earlier in the thread) I move in the opposite direction. it doesn't matter that there's no atmosphere. this is why jetpacks work in space.

you have the misconception that the exhaust gas is experiencing resistance from the atmosphere, and this is causing the rocket to accelerate. this is far from the case. the INSTANT the exhaust comes out of the rocket, the rocket's momentum increases in the other direction. this is a fundamental property of momentum, and has nothing at all to do with atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 18:54:43 2020 No.11582740 >>11582061 >but your 'fuel' magically gains more energy. The potential energy in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy. That is literally how fuels work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 18:58:03 2020 No.11582745 >>11580614 >merely pushed into the perfect vacuum And in doing so the exhaust gas pushes the rocket in the opposite direction, conserving the momentum of the system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 20:02:37 2020 No.11582956 >>11582740 >The potential energy in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy. That is literally how fuels work. Does the gas in your car get more potent when you're driving at 60mph versus 15mph? Because that's what your model would suggest here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 20:28:30 2020 No.11583027 >>11580711 yes that is correct

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 20:53:03 2020 No.11583087

>>11582956
That's not what the model suggests.
The total potential energy in the fuel places a limit on what the maximum kinetic energy can be. The kinetic energy the fuel has before being burned is part of the rocket's total kinetic energy, but does not contribute to producing more kinetic energy. As the fuel is burned, its potential energy accelerates the rocket, converting into kinetic energy.
The rocket's kinetic energy increases, but its mass and potential energy decrease.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 21:58:03 2020 No.11583251 >>11578832 So?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 21:59:07 2020 No.11583253 >>11577710 It... Does

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 22:01:17 2020 No.11583262 >>11580600 It can't both be true that Newton's 3rd is correct and rockets don't work in space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 22:03:12 2020 No.11583268 >>11583253 you can literally watch it happen during twilight launches, it's cool

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 22:24:50 2020 No.11583319 >>11580600 Those videos were worth a good laugh, he's so sure of himself when he's just schizo babbling about electromagnetism and doesn't really explain anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 22:38:02 2020 No.11583333 >>11580614 We comprehend it perfectly fine, you're just an idiot.

Anonymous Sun Apr 19 22:39:11 2020 No.11583337

>>11582546
Thank you for posting this, it covers that experiment well (I previously inquired about how such an experiment could be conducted). It was interesting to see that a vacuum only seemed to affect if the fuel could properly combust or not, and didn't seem to affect the thrust itself. Are there any fuels that don't require such pressure to be combustable (and would be safe/stable for practical use)?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 19 22:41:28 2020 No.11583345 >>11583337 oh no, the problem wasn't with combustion the problem was with ignition

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 05:59:56 2020 No.11584116

>>11583087
You will only get the same amount of kinetic energy from burning your fuel. But in a universe without force pairs, rocket ship exhaust acts as a free energy machine because momentum isn't conserved.

Not going to say it again schizo. Your model of physics is wrong, and you know it is. If you really believed in your own bullshit, you would see that there's ways to easily turn it into a machine that generates free energy. So do it faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 06:52:05 2020 No.11584182 >>11583337 You're welcome, I couldn't answer your question as I only know some very basic stuff about space and spaceflight

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 07:05:48 2020 No.11584195 >>11578816 Yes, that is what would be required for such a situation to occur. The insanity of the scenario just proved my point. YOU just proved my point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 13:15:36 2020 No.11584980 >>11583333 >picture = free energy device >comprehending it fine oh dear

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 13:30:04 2020 No.11585022

>>11584116
>rocket ship exhaust acts as a free energy machine
No it doesn't. The potential energy of the fuel is used to accelerate the rocket. There's this thing called specific impulse which literally allows you to predict how much a rocket's velocity will change for a given amount of fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse
In the rocket's reference frame, unburned fuel has no kinetic energy (because the fuel is in the rocket). Burning the fuel accelerates the rocket by a specific amount that is independent of the rocket's current velocity.
But tell us more about this free energy machine that can run out of fuel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 13:43:49 2020 No.11585048 as someone currently in an aerospace fluids II course this thread makes me want to kms

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 14:59:29 2020 No.11585296 >>11584980 Yes, literally. The other anon is correct, for it to work like you think it does would be a free energy device. You're creating momentum from nothing.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 15:30:35 2020 No.11585384
File: 13 KB, 685x376, retard science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11585296
>>11584980
Here, I'll spell it out for you. I'm pretty sure this would work, but I might be retarded. In any case you are still generating momentum from nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 15:32:59 2020 No.11585389 m1v1=m2v2 It's deceptively simple.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 15:43:07 2020 No.11585417 >>11585384 The picture stated that the rocket is generating thrust by pushing combusted fuel that has already been ejected(as a sort of mini atmosphere) by combusted fuel that's exiting the rocket.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 15:46:11 2020 No.11585433 >>11585417 Not how it works. Rockets generate thrust by conservation of momentum. The atmosphere is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 16:55:43 2020 No.11585619 >>11585296 >>11585384 Absolutely nothing in this picture >>11580614 demonstrates a "free energy machine" but please keep up with the nonsensical non-sequiturs as it makes you look absolutely mentally handicapped, like you can't read or use your eyes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 16:56:45 2020 No.11585622 >>11585433 >The atmosphere is irrelevant. No atmosphere = no thrust.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 16:58:48 2020 No.11585631

>>11585622
The rocket doesn't have to "push against" anything. Throwing something in a direction will throw me in the opposite direction. Momentum is conserved.
>>11585619
You are creating momentum from nothing. So it is a free energy machine. I literally designed one that would work with your physics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 17:18:03 2020 No.11585685 >>11585619 The rocket is stationary (system has net 0 momentum). It starts, and exhaust comes out the nozzle. If the rocket does not move (no thrust), then the net momentum is non-zero, as the exhaust has momentum. Where did this momentum come from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 17:30:45 2020 No.11585730 >still taking the bait just stop or at least spam it quickly to 300 if you aren't going to stop.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 17:36:17 2020 No.11585741 >>11585622 That is demonstrably not the case: >>11582546

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 17:37:47 2020 No.11585745 That guy is serious. He would've gotten bored already if it were just bait.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 18:34:37 2020 No.11585924 >>11582956 >Does the gas in your car get more potent when you're driving at 60mph versus 15mph? kinda! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 18:40:02 2020 No.11585940 >>11583337 >easily ignitable in a vacuum >safe for home use pick one

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 20:12:15 2020 No.11586221

>>11585940
I said nothing about "home use," I was wondering if such a fuel existed, then you wouldn't have to engineer special containment for a fuel to be used in a vacuum (although I suppose there are already fuels like that). I was just asking because the model rocket engine fuel obviously needed special consideration to operate in that experiment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 20:38:02 2020 No.11586285 >>11586221 Hypergolic fuels will spontaneously ignite on contact. No atmosphere needed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 20:46:52 2020 No.11586313 >>11586221 Most solid fuels works without air, like I dunno black powder. If they don't it's mostly a heat issue not a vacuum issue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 20:49:31 2020 No.11586321 Uh, you’re forgetting gravity exists there

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:11:09 2020 No.11586551 >>11585048 yeah same

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:12:35 2020 No.11586557 >>11586221 it's just an issue transferring the heat from the igniter to the propellant to start it burning

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:33:27 2020 No.11586621 >>11585631 You're not throwing anything this is related to the thrust force. But you also have to take >>11582552 and >>11580614 into account

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:42:00 2020 No.11586656

>>11581222
>how can there be pressure from an explosion in a vacuum
The explosion releases a lot of energy from a single point that expands outwards. The """pressure""" in that situation is the explosion.
A rocket is an """explosion"" from a single point, concentrated out of the truster. More accurately it's a controlled release of a volatile substance that is ignited, which produces a burst of hot gas or plasma.
You could just released the fuel to create thrust, but it wouldn't have the same burst of energy in the space of time, that igniting it does.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:44:41 2020 No.11586668

>>11586621
Yes, the rocket literally throws gas out one end to accelerate. You don't know ANYTHING about rockets. It doesn't matter what you throw it just has to have mass. It could be gas, liquid, African children, it doesn't matter. It will work the same.

Anonymous Mon Apr 20 22:46:35 2020 No.11586679

>>11586656
wrong, just releasing the fuel works fine, that's called a cold gas thruster
if you heat it first, that's one of the best types of thruster available, known as a thermal rocket
you then prepend whatever energy source you used to heat the rocket to the front of the name

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:11:16 2020 No.11586785 just arrived at this thread & skimmed thru the posts... is there actually an argument going on questioning if rockets can work in space? is this actually happening?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:49:56 2020 No.11586893 >>11586785 yeah it came out of flat earth circles

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 20 23:51:08 2020 No.11586895 >>11586621 the thrust force is creating by throwing gas out

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:01:29 2020 No.11586917 >>11586893 >yeah it came out of flat earth circles >circles from their arseholes

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 00:55:45 2020 No.11587000 >>11586621 What magical properties does this atmosphere have that the exhaust plume doesn't?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 08:11:39 2020 No.11587671 >>11582546 Invalid. See: >>11580932

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 08:27:07 2020 No.11587689
File: 636 KB, 728x900, 1565741657610.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11582546
That video by Cody and similar videos, as "proof" that rockets can propel in space, have been completely debunked already. The only thing Cody shows in that video is that rockets DON'T work in space. You didn't think much before you linked that, did you?

Three debunkings of Cody's videos:

https://files.catbox.moe/t8q49t.webm

https://files.catbox.moe/b5o2he.webm

https://files.catbox.moe/c7e80m.mp4

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 08:34:39 2020 No.11587703 >>11587689 >rockets DON'T work in space Gunpowder doesn't work in space. Which is why we bring our own oxidizer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 08:35:51 2020 No.11587706 >>11587703 >didn't see the whole debunking video There's things more fundamentally wrong with Cody's experiments than that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 08:37:11 2020 No.11587708 >>11587706 ...his biggest problem is that his chambers aren't a vacuum. Like every other similar experiment as pointed out by >>11580932

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 08:37:30 2020 No.11587709 >>11587703 >Which is why we bring our own oxidizer. bugger, ya just beat me to it.. I get it now, these idiots are trying to say no oxygen in space therefore no rocket fire... I kid you not.. (comedy gold)

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 09:05:03 2020 No.11587760 Stand on a skateboard and throw a ball, you'll notice you're moving backwards when you throw hard enough to generate thrust. Now replicate the experiment in a vacuum, and die from depressurization.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:28:50 2020 No.11588162
File: 923 KB, 1920x1080, 9px-HfuJLdz66iYku4v5PEeYLH_S7p3UTVFH2hBEe6I.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11586668
>>11586895
>>11587000
The case that can be ejected by the rocket is incredibly low when compared to the mass of the rocket. Additionally most of it is used to exit the atmosphere.
As you go higher up in the atmosphere it gets thinner and thinner making the thrust force less effective which is why rocket scientists don't exclusively use gas but try to play around with gravity and orbits as well to exit the atmosphere.
But I do agree with >>11577713 that they could just be using the ejected gas as a sort of atmosphere to push off of.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:30:09 2020 No.11588167 >>11588162 >As you go higher up in the atmosphere it gets thinner and thinner making the thrust force less effective no, not true. it gets stronger, not weaker

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:31:17 2020 No.11588169 >>11588162 wrong, rockets get better as there is less atmosphere

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:40:24 2020 No.11588193 >>11588169 >>11588167 That's because they have less drag from the front due to a thinner atmosphere but are you suggesting this won't affect the thrust created in any way?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:42:23 2020 No.11588200 >>11588193 they make more thrust in a vacuum for some reason I think it's the atmosphere pushing on the outside of the bell but I'm not sure

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:43:43 2020 No.11588203 >>11588200 It's called having less of a gravity well to deal with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:46:12 2020 No.11588212 >>11588203 no

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:52:28 2020 No.11588228 >>11577703 Do they not teach Newton Laws in school anymore?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:56:36 2020 No.11588244 If rockets can't work outside an atmosphere, then what propelled the lunar missions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:57:15 2020 No.11588247 >>11588244 Oh god here we go.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 11:58:56 2020 No.11588253 >>11588247 The "rockets work by pushing off something" guy is a moon landing denier?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 12:01:30 2020 No.11588258 >>11588253 No but I'm fairly sure we're off to a discussion heading in that direction since "rockets can't work in a vacuum".

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 12:28:40 2020 No.11588334 >>11588244 ▲

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 12:51:36 2020 No.11588377

>>11588162
>The case that can be ejected by the rocket is incredibly low when compared to the mass of the rocket
Most of a chemical rocket's mass is fuel. Outside of that, F = ma. Any given exhaust molecule makes up for small m with large a, which gives the large m of the rocket a small a. Across all the exhaust, you get reasonable delta v.
> rocket scientists don't exclusively use gas but try to play around with gravity and orbits as well to exit the atmosphere.
No they don't. Getting to orbit requires exiting most of the atmosphere anyway. Gravitational effects are used to conserve fuel later on, like with interplanetary probes and flybys of planets.
>making the thrust force less effective
Decreasing atmospheric pressure increases the exhaust velocity, increasing the rocket's thrust.
> ejected gas as a sort of atmosphere to push off of.
By your own logic that doesn't work because that "mini-atmosphere" itself has nothing to push against, unless you think that calling something an atmosphere gives it magic properties.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 12:52:44 2020 No.11588381 >>11588203 Gravity can only affect delta-v. It wouldn't affect the thrust.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 12:53:47 2020 No.11588382 >>11588377 >unless you think that calling something an atmosphere gives it magic properties. this is what I think he's thinking >>11588381 wrong, Gravity only affects your path through space

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:01:24 2020 No.11588394

>>11588377
>Most of a chemical rocket's mass is fuel.
Which is used before exiting the atmosphere.
>Gravitational effects are used to conserve fuel later on, like with interplanetary probes and flybys of planets.
That's essentially what I meant.
>"mini-atmosphere" itself has nothing to push against
It doesn't have to, it just has to be, just like the normal atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:04:21 2020 No.11588409 Do rockets rely on volume flow or mass? >>11577703

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:04:35 2020 No.11588413 >>11588394 >which is used before exiting the atmosphere wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:06:04 2020 No.11588417 >>11588409 the engine powerhead calculations use volume flow and the total vehicle performance uses mass flow this is why hydrogen is a meme propellant

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:09:12 2020 No.11588425 >>11588413 They throw the largest tanks back before exiting the atmosphere.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:11:56 2020 No.11588432

>>11588394
>Which is used before exiting the atmosphere.
Because getting into orbit from a massive body like Earth while overcoming air resistance is hard. If Earth had no atmosphere, lifting off from its surface would be easier (no air resistance) but still would consume the largest share of fuel. With a staged rocket, the higher stages would operate in space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:23:18 2020 No.11588459 >>11588425 the vast majority of fuel is spent by the first stage to accelerate the second stage, yes after it drops off, the fully fueled second stage is completely out of the atmosphere and proceeds to accelerate to orbit

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:36:54 2020 No.11588493

>>11588459
Yes
>>11588432
>Because getting into orbit from a massive body like Earth while overcoming air resistance is hard.
Yes
>If Earth had no atmosphere, lifting off from its surface would be easier
Are you the guy that talked about throwing stuff in the opposite direction rather than thrust? How would that work out?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:37:49 2020 No.11588498 >>11588493 throwing things in the opposite direction is how thrust works, anon

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:54:34 2020 No.11588557

>>11588498
What the people itt are trying to say is you need something to push off of in order to move in another direction. You're not throwing the gas but rather using it to push on gas.
You'll move in the opposite direction of a table if you push yourself off of a table in space. Your legs are the propellent, your body is the rocket and the table is the already ejected gas. A rocket will push itself off from the ground and the air to move upwards.
They're stating that the rocket is using the ejected ignited propellent to push itself in the opposite direction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:55:10 2020 No.11588564 >>11588162 >As you go higher up in the atmosphere it gets thinner and thinner making the thrust force less effective NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Have you been reading anything we say? Holy shit you are dense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:58:09 2020 No.11588570 >>11588564 >>11588193

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:58:52 2020 No.11588573 >>11588557 They're wrong. The rocket doesn't push off of anything. >>11588498 is exactly right, throwing mass in the opposite direction is indeed how thrust works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 13:59:53 2020 No.11588577 >>11588570 The thrust actually slightly increases as rockets become more efficient with thinner atmospheres.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:03:26 2020 No.11588586 >>11588573 How is the mass thrown?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:05:59 2020 No.11588592 >>11588586 You convert the potential energy in the fuel into kinetic energy, and throw the fuel out one side to accelerate yourself in the opposite direction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:09:52 2020 No.11588608 >>11588586 Does the force of my legs pushing off from something stop because I find myself in a vacuum? No? Why would the force of a chemical reaction stop working?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:10:13 2020 No.11588610 File: 858 KB, 1314x1650, 5827022821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11588570 Look at the thrust coefficients.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:18:21 2020 No.11588646 >>11579700 >Technically he's correct No he’s not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:20:34 2020 No.11588657 >>11588200 it's because of the pressure difference inside and outside of the combustion chamber. gas molecules shoving against the atmosphere actually makes the rocket less efficient

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 14:22:52 2020 No.11588665

>>11588557
>What the people itt are trying to say is you need something to push off of in order to move in another direction.
that's not what the people in the thread are saying at all. only one person, the OP is saying that. everyone else is telling them that they're wrong.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 15:08:24 2020 No.11588825

>>11588557
>What the people itt are trying to say is you need something to push off of in order to move in another direction.
It's one person asserting this. Lunar missions and spacewalks have shown this is not the case; and if you want to claim lunar missions and spacewalks are fake, then terrestrial vacuum chamber experiments show that thrust can occur in a vacuum.
>but the exhaust creates an atmosphere in a closed chamber!
Negligible amount, and thrust occurs immediately regardless, plus thrust performance itself was better in the near vacuum anyway.

Besides, the whole idea is around the interaction between the exhaust and the atmosphere (or lack of, or the environment around it); while it completely disregards the interaction between the rocket itself and the exhaust (the interaction which produces the thrust).

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 15:21:17 2020 No.11588852 >>11577710 Newton's third law is so stupid bro

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:14:32 2020 No.11590023 >rockets need a mass to push-off to propel themselves forward. is this for real? (comedy gold)

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:16:09 2020 No.11590028 >>11580932 This. The physics in all of those experiment videos is highly suspect.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:23:02 2020 No.11590044

>>11585631
>it's creating momentum from nothing
Trolling or just very dumb? pic clearly shows that in space no moment is created ("rocketship doesn't move forward", "no thrust is generated", "ship remains stationary"), and that in Earth's atmosphere there is obviously momentum and clearly not from nothing - the momentum is generated from the rocket engine. Free energy my ass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:36:22 2020 No.11590081 >>11590023 I mean it's technically true, people tend to refer to it as "propellant" though. I guess massless particles with momentum work as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:39:48 2020 No.11590095 >>11590023 No, they don't, because rockets work outside of the basic rules of physics. They work under special quantum relativity physics.

Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:45:25 2020 No.11590109

>>11590081
>I mean it's technically true, people tend to refer to it as "propellant" though.
>I guess massless particles with momentum work as well.
not what I meant..
the argument here is that a rocket using whatever.. when in space does not need to push it self away from a planet or star or any other body in order to propel itself..

if it was in a vacuum of space with zero other stars in it, it would still work..

>>11590095
>No, they don't, because rockets work outside of the basic rules of physics. They work under special quantum relativity physics.
no, if these rockets are working using simple newton-principles..
If the rockets speed was a big enough fraction of light-speed then relativity limitations come into play.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:46:33 2020 No.11590112 Here's a fun question; how much does a 2 ton car, accelerating at 10mph for 10 seconds in the direction opposite the earth's rotation, slow the rotational velocity of the earth?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 22:59:55 2020 No.11590141 >>11590112 you have attached the wrong units to your value for acceleration, this is a meaningless question how fast is it accelerating

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:20:17 2020 No.11590191 >>11590141 ah you're right 10mph/s

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:23:00 2020 No.11590197 >>11590191 may I assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:23:11 2020 No.11590198 >>11590112 It would increase the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:27:23 2020 No.11590205 >>11590197 sure >>11590198 so it will slow it a negative amount then

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:28:31 2020 No.11590209 >>11590198 it will change the angular velocity of the earth's rotation >>11590205 with uniform density?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:30:28 2020 No.11590211 >>11590209 >with uniform density? yeah

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:31:31 2020 No.11590213 >>11590211 lmao what kinda loon uses mph/s anyway I'm going to bed

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:37:32 2020 No.11590228 >>11590205 >so it will slow it a negative amount then Sure? Kind of a weird way to phrase it but yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 21 23:37:40 2020 No.11590229 >>11590213 good night

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 00:03:04 2020 No.11590308

>>11590044
Yes it is. When the rocket creates exhaust, that exhaust has momentum. If the rocket doesn't have an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction, the momentum of the system isn't conserved. You've created momentum from nothing, breaking Newton's 3rd. Momentum needs energy, so you are creating energy from nothing. So it is a free energy machine. My design for a free energy machine would work with your physics. You are unbelievably dense and I don't know how many times me and other anons have had to explain this to you. Yet you persist in your retarded delusions

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 03:47:49 2020 No.11590766 >>11590112 I got -3.037*10^-21 mph if anyone cares

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 09:15:17 2020 No.11591198

>>11590308
>If the rocket doesn't have an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction
See: >>11580600
>That law isn't in dispute here. Quoting it to "prove" rockets "work in space" shows you don't grasp the fundamental problem here. The 3rd law is 100% correct. When asteroids floating in the vacuum of space crashes into each other, the 3rd law applies. Likewise, the law applies to objects interacting on the ground on Earth, underwater, and in the sky. The 3rd law is real, but it doesn't "do" anything for a rocket engine fired in a perfect vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 09:16:18 2020 No.11591203 >>11590308 Also, the energy is generated from the rocket engine which consumes fuel - nothing free about that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 10:01:40 2020 No.11591305 >>11590766 Rotational velocity is not mph

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 10:10:40 2020 No.11591332 >>11577703 yea i never understood this as well, when the rocket leaves the earth the combustion is pushing against the air but when it is in space what is it going against to produce a opposite reaction. I really want to understand this

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 10:27:33 2020 No.11591355

>>11591332
>when the rocket leaves the earth the combustion is pushing against the air
What the fuck? You think the exhaust is part of the rocket? Once it leaves the rocket it imparts no force on it so why would it pushing on anything matter to the rocket?

The opposite reaction is that the rocket moves forward at the moment it pushes exhaust backward.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 10:30:09 2020 No.11591363 >>11591355 I always imagined that how planes worked as well as helicopters. It's just my intuition but I guess I am wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 12:15:05 2020 No.11591565 >>11591332 just read the thread, it's been explained multiple times

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 13:29:06 2020 No.11591745 >>11591198 You believe in the third law yet somehow don't believe that rockets work. Are rockets magic? They must be to you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 13:31:40 2020 No.11591749

>>11591203
See my earlier design for a free energy machine using your physics >>11585384 In principle, it is possible to reverse chemical reactions, you could convert the kinetic energy in the spent fuel back into potential energy and do the same tihng.

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:06:43 2020 No.11591827

>>11591749
it's only a "free energy" machine if the solar panel is 100% efficient and no energy is lost from the laser or panel as heat. we know solar panels aren't 100% efficient, but even if they were, you cannot get around the energy loss from the laser that would suck power out of your rocket. there's plenty of other devices that might be free energy devices if we throw physics out of the window, but none of them disprove rockets either

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:11:58 2020 No.11591851 >>11591827 It probably doesn't need to be 100% efficient, just sufficiently efficient that the energy gained through magic is more than the energy lost. In any case, momentum is still being generated from nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:13:09 2020 No.11591854 >>11591851 it wouldnt be gaining energy through magic, though. that's not how it works.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:14:17 2020 No.11591858 >>11591854 Yes it would. There's a net increase in momentum, which is impossible.

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:18:38 2020 No.11591872

>>11591858
that's not how momentum works. momentum is static unless work is done on a system, at which point momentum can and does change. your "magic" would mean that literally nothing in our world would work. cars, planes, batteries, human bodies, everything, all of it would be useless. step back and do a sanity check on your theory next time

Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:19:34 2020 No.11591874

>>11591363
Planes and helicopters work by hitting air in the atmosphere with a wing. By pushing more air down than up, the air imparts upward force on the wing. A rocket is the complete opposite since it carries the gas that it pushes on to create thrust. Neither work by air pushing against anything other than the vehicle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 14:21:06 2020 No.11591879 >>11591872 The point is that momentum needs to be conserved. For rockets to not work, momentum wouldn't be conserved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:38:08 2020 No.11593460 How can rockets work on the ground if the ground has nothing to push against because the ground and the atmosphere are orbiting the Sun in the pure vacuum of space? Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 22 22:39:13 2020 No.11593464 >>11591874 this

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 07:09:47 2020 No.11594478 OP doesn't believe in recoil

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 07:23:56 2020 No.11594495 >>11591879 >momentum needs to be conserved Why? What is momentum?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 11:04:15 2020 No.11594986 >>11594495 Momentum is speed times mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation

>>	Diracula Thu Apr 23 12:11:09 2020 No.11595153 File: 35 KB, 500x417, solutionbaloonproblem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Dont worry OP i got you covered.

>>	Diracula Thu Apr 23 12:14:06 2020 No.11595164 >>11593460 uuhhhhhmmm akkktually the rocket pushes against the air which is held in place by gravity, creating a stable platform around the planet for rocket launches. i believe people get confused once the rocket is in the vacuum itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 12:45:03 2020 No.11595245 >>11594986 Why does it need to be conserved?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 16:44:50 2020 No.11596119 >>11591305 it absolutely can be brainlet

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 16:46:42 2020 No.11596122 >>11596119 how many mph is 246 radians/sec?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:46:19 2020 No.11596254 >>11596119 referring to distance traveled by an arbitrary point on the surface that is

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:49:07 2020 No.11596260 >>11596254 That's called tangential velocity, not rotational velocity.

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:52:48 2020 No.11596269 [DELETED]

Threadly reminder that the "rockets don't work in a vacuum" posters are either retards or disinfo agents to muddy the waters over the fact than the Apollo moon landing was a hoax.
The one problem NASA could not overcome was creating the necessary survivable environment to transport humans to the moon and back.
Sending unmanned probes to the moon is many, many orders of magnitude easier than sending living people there.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 17:53:57 2020 No.11596273 >>11596260 oh, guess I learned something today

Anonymous Thu Apr 23 18:05:05 2020 No.11596293

>>11596269
>The one problem NASA could not overcome was creating the necessary survivable environment to transport humans to the moon and back

Literally how? Thermal insulation, vacuum-proof chambers, and high-strength steel existed way before the Apollo program. Name one problem that they couldn't have solved at the time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 23 19:30:46 2020 No.11596507 >>11596293 You should look into who Thomas Baron was. Bear in mind his report was totally ignored by NASA until he leaked it to the press. A few days later he and his entire family were killed (by a train hitting their car).

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math