Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 169

Thread: Rockets need an atmosphere to propel. There's no air in space.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,549
    NASA fake video footage
    And SpaceX and ULA and Russia and China and Japan and India and North Korea and South Korea and Canada and Australia and Israel and Ukraine and Iran and New Zealand and pretty much every European country.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by NGCHunter View Post
    Here is my footage completely independent of NASA or SpaceX, showing the Falcon Heavy boosters turning around and reversing their direction while at around 100 km altitude in a vacuum:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5K7HKFkZ8o
    Here is additional footage from a Russian amateur astronomer of a geostationary satellite being inserted into orbit:
    http://russianspaceweb.com/images/sp...expressam8.gif
    The telescope is tracking it based on its transfer orbit and the satellite is rapidly accelerated out of the view when the engine is lit to insert it into its final orbit.
    Very nice video. It is too bad the lateral separation was too wide to capture the full reentry of both boosters. It should become obvious to rockethunter that the ascent until the booster cutoff was much faster than the reentry of them, that the rocket was accelerating the whole time and that the reentry burns, quite visible, caused the deceleration of each of them.

    I asked rockethunter three times to list his experiments he has done and what he measured. I repeat that question, maybe the moderators will remind him of the rules of the forum.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,883
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I asked rockethunter three times to list his experiments he has done and what he measured. I repeat that question, maybe the moderators will remind him of the rules of the forum.
    A report is the appropriate way of bringing that to our attention...but yes:

    rockethunter,

    As the proponent of this conspiracy theory, you are obligated to answer questions about it. Please begin doing so in your next post.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    A report is the appropriate way of bringing that to our attention...but yes:

    rockethunter,

    As the proponent of this conspiracy theory, you are obligated to answer questions about it. Please begin doing so in your next post.
    I apologize and will use that method in the future.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,887
    The objective evidence is overwhelming for man in space, thanks to rocket engines.

    Ed White:
    Attachment 24078

    ISS transit:
    Attachment 24079

    ISS (astronaut Don Pettit) photography of a blue laser shined from Earth. The blue brightness imaged required about 500 miles distance due to the high wattage of the laser.
    Attachment 24081
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2
    How did we get the data and rocks from the Apollo missions? How did we get the data and pictures from the Voyager missions? How did we get the good pictures of Pluto? How did the rovers get to Mars?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,549
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    The objective evidence is overwhelming for man in space, thanks to rocket engines.

    Ed White:
    Attachment 24078

    ISS transit:
    Attachment 24079

    ISS (astronaut Don Pettit) photography of a blue laser shined from Earth. The blue brightness imaged required about 500 miles distance due to the high wattage of the laser.
    Attachment 24081
    You attachments don't work (here) like that.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,887
    Let me try again...


    Ed White:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ed White in space.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	36.1 KB 
ID:	24082

    ISS transit:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	iuKFW9YU0H.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	7.7 KB 
ID:	24083

    ISS (astronaut Don Pettit) photography of a blue laser shined from Earth. The blue brightness imaged required about 500 miles distance due to the high wattage of the laser.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ISS flash8 336_0857.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	390.3 KB 
ID:	24084
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    Hard to believe it's almost been a year since I did this, but a friend and I used a lunar transit to triangulate the distance, altitude, speed and size of ISS by observing it simultaneously from two locations spaced just over a kilometer apart:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80y2LP1bWH4
    My video quality of ISS has improved quite a bit since the intro to that video though, courtesy of satellite tracking software that I've also been developing:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epf8NiLszoc
    Strangely enough, it works great at tracking ISS based on its orbital elements, and the source code can be viewed right here:
    https://github.com/AstronomyLiveYt/S...rakerBetaV5.py
    Last edited by NGCHunter; 2019-Mar-14 at 08:00 PM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,857
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I asked rockethunter three times to list his experiments he has done and what he measured. I repeat that question, maybe the moderators will remind him of the rules of the forum.
    I'm sure that he hasn't. But actually, neither have I so does that negate my right to have an opinion (in my case, I am satisfied with equal and opposite reaction!)? I'm not sure if it is really necessary to do your own experiments to believe something, is all...
    As above, so below

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Very nice video. It is too bad the lateral separation was too wide to capture the full reentry of both boosters. It should become obvious to rockethunter that the ascent until the booster cutoff was much faster than the reentry of them, that the rocket was accelerating the whole time and that the reentry burns, quite visible, caused the deceleration of each of them.

    I asked rockethunter three times to list his experiments he has done and what he measured. I repeat that question, maybe the moderators will remind him of the rules of the forum.
    The experiments are in the video. They prove that there is no equal and opposite reaction from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Two experiments and one example of wind. Now the burden of proof is on you to show the there is an equal and opposite reaction from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Very nice video. It is too bad the lateral separation was too wide to capture the full reentry of both boosters. It should become obvious to rockethunter that the ascent until the booster cutoff was much faster than the reentry of them, that the rocket was accelerating the whole time and that the reentry burns, quite visible, caused the deceleration of each of them.

    I asked rockethunter three times to list his experiments he has done and what he measured. I repeat that question, maybe the moderators will remind him of the rules of the forum.
    The first video, the rocket doesn't even seem to leave the atmosphere. The second video is a cartoon.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    35
    You mean petrified wood?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drer...ature=youtu.be

    Did we do all that? can you prove it?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    35
    Not saying there won't be pressure gradient. It is just that gas expands freely into a vacuum without doing work.

    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semeste...nsion_sim.html

    No work is done. The rocket doesn't push the gas out. Pressure gradient force is its own force like gravity.

    Pressure gradient force is not the same as throwing a ball.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    The first video, the rocket doesn't even seem to leave the atmosphere. The second video is a cartoon.
    That did not answer the question which is please list the experiments that you have done to attempt to prove your theory. What data results were observed/recorded.
    Watching videos is not doing an experiment.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    rockethunter, how did the Curiosity rover get to Mars through the vacuum of space?
    Ditto for hundreds of other missions that have gone beyond the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. astronauts get to the International Space Station using rockets to change their trajectory above the atmosphere.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    Not saying there won't be pressure gradient. It is just that gas expands freely into a vacuum without doing work.

    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semeste...nsion_sim.html

    No work is done. The rocket doesn't push the gas out. Pressure gradient force is its own force like gravity.

    Pressure gradient force is not the same as throwing a ball.
    You are linking a thought experiment and applying it in a way that is not real. In the free expansion thought experiment, the gas does no work on the vacuum. A real gas is composed of molecules, which in a rocket are accelerated out the nozzle exactly like throwing a ball (or maybe hitting a ball with a bat, since the collisions happen quickly). If you built a real replication of a Joule expansion chamber and opened the valve between the tanks with everything mounted on a frictionless surface, the apparatus would accelerate sideways, conserving momentum with the accelerating gas inside.

    Pressure gradient force is not a classic fundamental force like gravity. But all forces, including gravity, follow Newton's third law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    rockethunter, how did the Curiosity rover get to Mars through the vacuum of space?
    Ditto for hundreds of other missions that have gone beyond the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. astronauts get to the International Space Station using rockets to change their trajectory above the atmosphere.
    Yes, to be honest that's really hard to get my little brain around. If you think of all the science that's been done, the rovers and missions and all they've discovered, I can't imagine how somebody could convince themselves that somehow it is all fake. There are thousands of people out there (including people I know quite well) who are doing their whole careers in areas that basically require rockets to be able to work in space. It seems pretty difficult to imagine that these people are somehow faking their careers to be in some conspiracy for some reason that I can't understand...
    As above, so below

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    rockethunter: back in post 29, I asked whether you thought all travel into space was impossible, or just travel beyond Earth orbit. I'm waiting for your response to that question.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,549
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    Not saying there won't be pressure gradient. It is just that gas expands freely into a vacuum without doing work.

    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semeste...nsion_sim.html

    No work is done. The rocket doesn't push the gas out. Pressure gradient force is its own force like gravity.

    Pressure gradient force is not the same as throwing a ball.
    Joule expansion is not relevant for a rocket engine, as in the Joule (free) expansion thought experiment the mass is still contained in the same overall container. There is absolutely no mass expelled from the overall container to the outside world if you compare the start to the end situation (but as vQkr correctly points out, in a real life situation you would also measure force while transitioning from the start to the end situation but that phase is ignored in the free expansion thought experiment.). A rocket engine is the opposite: the nozzle is OPEN. All the rocket does is throwing mass from the container (the combustion chamber) to the outside world (space). As I showed earlier, the difference between the start and end situation for a Saturn V is 2800 tons. For Free expansion: 0 grams. Irrelevant link.

    When you try to find experiments that are actually relevant for a rocket engine, you have to make sure it contains the following elements:

    Object 1 is accelerating a mass 2 which it expels.

    -The 2 situations compared in the free expansion concept have the same mass, so irrelevant.
    -When letting go of an object you're holding, earth is accelerating it, you aren't, so irrelevant.

    Do you have an example that actually uses the principle of a rocket engine?
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2019-Mar-15 at 08:28 AM.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,549
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    The first video, the rocket doesn't even seem to leave the atmosphere.
    "seem" is not enough. Prove it. There are plenty sensors and calculation methods which allow anyone who wanted to to track/calculate the altitude of the Falcon Heavy launch and yet nobody had any evidence suggesting it did not leave the atmosphere.

    What did you expect to see anyway, what makes you say it "seems" it did not leave the atmosphere?
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2019-Mar-15 at 08:33 AM.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,549
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    You mean petrified wood?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drer...ature=youtu.be

    Did we do all that? can you prove it?
    Now explain away the hundreds of kilos of moon rock, brought back independently by both the USA and Russia, that are shown to be not of terrestrial origin. Or rather: don't. Not yet. First give an actually relevant experiment that shows a rocket can't work in a vacuum, because your examples up to now were irrelevant as I've explained.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,736
    Another try: there are toy rockets made from bottles with water and compressed air. The compressed air forces the water out as a jet and the rocket takes off. It’s a simple reactive toy that does not need an atmosphere. Hero made a steam jet that moves in the same way. I do not see how rockethunter can maintain that these push against air, they are simple jets.
    Last edited by profloater; 2019-Mar-15 at 10:49 AM. Reason: typo
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,902
    Rockethunter, based on your claim that rockets donít work in a vacuum, are you saying that space flight is not possible, that something other than rockets are used to accomplish it, or that there is no vacuum in space?



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel View Post
    rockethunter: back in post 29, I asked whether you thought all travel into space was impossible, or just travel beyond Earth orbit. I'm waiting for your response to that question.
    And given your answer to this question, I'd like you to answer mine about how you know there is a vacuum in space if we've never been there.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    "seem" is not enough. Prove it. There are plenty sensors and calculation methods which allow anyone who wanted to to track/calculate the altitude of the Falcon Heavy launch and yet nobody had any evidence suggesting it did not leave the atmosphere.

    What did you expect to see anyway, what makes you say it "seems" it did not leave the atmosphere?
    Furthermore, the second video is also from an amateur astronomer. He needs to provide proof to back up his serious accusation of fakery.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    The first video, the rocket doesn't even seem to leave the atmosphere. The second video is a cartoon.
    On the first point, measurements made from the video indicate that the booster is above the Karman line and in space during the boostback burn. My telescope has an altitude dial on the side which was previously recorded using a gopro during launch. From my launch viewing site, the telescope is angled up about 40 degrees above the horizon during the boostback burn. This sped-up video is zoomed in the altitude dial, apologies the resolution isn't good enough to read the numbers but you can see where the numbers are marked and they're in 10 degree increments, the video starts at launch (0 degrees) and ends at the end of the boostback burn (40 degrees):
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LOj...ew?usp=sharing
    At launch the Falcon boosters are about 22 pixels wide in my camera:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/16-j...ew?usp=sharing
    I'm 21.1 km from the launch site and the boosters are each 3.7 meters wide, so that corresponds to an angular size of 0.01 degrees. By the end of the boostback they're only about 3.2 pixels wide:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dry...ew?usp=sharing
    Given that we know from the launch that a 3.7 meter wide booster is 22 pixels wide in the view from 21.1 km, that means a pixel size of 3.2 pixels corresponds to an angular size of about 0.00146 degrees. The range between my telescope and the booster is therefore about 145 km at that time. Given that it's about 40 degrees above the horizon, then even if we assume a flat earth the altitude above the ground of the booster was roughly 122 km. Yes, the video indicates it was in space during the boostback and had no trouble reversing course to come back and land near the launch site. Please show your evidence that the video indicates it was not in space.

    As for the second video, please show your evidence that it was a cartoon. Viktor Voropaev provided those images, he has a long history of tracking satellites in the SeeSat-L group.
    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/image...00a66ed80f.gif

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    You mean petrified wood?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drer...ature=youtu.be

    Did we do all that? can you prove it?
    rockethunter

    This is all said as a Moderator.

    You need to start answering ALL the questions that have been put to you, not just the ones you choose. You also should use our Quote function, or otherwise indicate exactly what question, from what post,
    you are addressing. And, though you may ask others questions, they are under no obligation to answer your questions, nor to prove the mainstream understanding (such as that rockets work in vacuum).
    You are trying to overturn science, it is up to you to do the work.

    This is your second warning. If you do not get busy, nor follow these instructions, you will be infracted, which will lead to suspensions and an eventual banning.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    Not saying there won't be pressure gradient. It is just that gas expands freely into a vacuum without doing work.

    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semeste...nsion_sim.html

    No work is done. The rocket doesn't push the gas out. Pressure gradient force is its own force like gravity.

    Pressure gradient force is not the same as throwing a ball.
    There is a common misunderstanding that the statement "rockets do no work on a vacuum" is the same as "rockets do not work in a vacuum".

    Go into your bathroom. Turn on the shower. Watch the shower head push backwards as the water comes out. Put your hand under the jet. Tell us how much further back the shower head goes. Why does what happens happen?
    Last edited by Onebigmonkey; 2019-Mar-15 at 05:16 PM. Reason: typo

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by rockethunter View Post
    You mean petrified wood?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drer...ature=youtu.be

    Did we do all that? can you prove it?
    Completely irrelevant to this topic, but let me make it simple for you:

    No-one gave anyone any moon rocks on the Apollo 11 tour.

    No-one from NASA ever claimed that the rock in question was a moon rock.

    The whole thing was an art stunt, nothing to do with NASA, or Apollo 11.

    http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/maan...maansteen.html
    Last edited by Onebigmonkey; 2019-Mar-15 at 05:19 PM. Reason: adding link

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •