rigorousintuition.ca

Rockets in space.

Gawd, the guy can't even spell. It's equations, not equasions, and dispurse is just a nice way of saying "stealing a purse".
And of course there's something for the fuel to push against - the rocket.

So the globe earth hoax has been perpetuated for 1600 years because of "statism".

sorry, my personal predelictions ruining everything again: statism should have been "robbery". theft. stealing. plain and simple. thats all it comes down to. is that a green screen, harness, zero-g airplane, mocked up model, water tank, actors and an unrelated rocket blast off? or not?

How Do Space Rockets Work Without Air?
By Elizabeth Howell, Live Science Contributor | April 9, 2013 03:29pm ET

In space, rockets zoom around with no air to push against. What's going on?

Rockets and engines in space behave according to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket shoots fuel out one end, this propels the rocket forward — no air is required.

NASA says this principle is easy to observe on Earth. If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back. However, because your weight on the skateboard is heavier than that of the bowling ball, you won't move as far.

That's the challenge engineers face when designing space engines. Yes, a small amount of thrust does push the spacecraft forward, but it often takes a great deal of fuel to get going anywhere quickly. More fuel means more weight, which adds to the cost of a mission.

To save on money when shooting for far-away planets such as Jupiter, some spacecraft whip around a planet (say, Venus) and use its gravity to get a speed boost. This shortens the time it takes to get to other destinations.

Intuitively, the argument that rockets can't work in a vacuum seems to make sense (so much for intuition, in this case...), but if we look at the bowling ball/skateboard example above it's obvious that the bowling ball doesn't rely on the atmosphere pushing back against it to move the person standing on the skateboard when they throw the ball. The movement of the person on the skateboard is wholly dependent on how fast they can throw the bowling ball away from them. If they throw it slowly they'll only move a little. If they had superhuman strength and could throw it away at 100mph, they'd roll much further in the opposite direction. How heavy the atmosphere is would only alter the rate of deceleration of the thrown bowling ball, and in a vaccum the thrown ball would not ever decelerate until some other force acted on it.

Again, the bowling ball hitting the air as it is thrown does nothing to alter in any way shape or form what the actual act of throwing the ball does to propel the person on the skateboard in the opposite direction.

I think the bowling ball/skateboard example might be exactly applicable in the rocket-in-a-vacuum scenario. A rocket is just a system designed to throw matter away at huge velocities in a sustained fashion. And as Dr Evil says, all the while it's pushing against the rocket to allow it to eject the gases at high velocities.

If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back.

erroneous, this assumes gravity is acting upon you before anything happens in the first place. not there in supposed "space".

Elihu » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:25 pm wrote:

If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back.

erroneous, this assumes gravity is acting upon you before anything happens in the first place. not there in supposed "space".

Erroneous. No gravity involved in that example. If you were throwing the bowling ball down in an attempt to go up, sure, gravity would mess it up for you, but going sideways the only thing gravity does is make you slow down and come to a stop because of friction. In space you would just keep going.

DrEvil wrote:

Elihu » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:25 pm wrote:

If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back.

erroneous, this assumes gravity is acting upon you before anything happens in the first place. not there in supposed "space".

Erroneous. No gravity involved in that example. If you were throwing the bowling ball down in an attempt to go up, sure, gravity would mess it up for you, but going sideways the only thing gravity does is make you slow down and come to a stop because of friction. In space you would just keep going.

pointless sidebar. how easy it is to go astray.

so are those green/blue screens, harnesses, zero-g airplanes, mocked up models, water tanks, actors and unrelated rocket blast offs? or not?

Here's the thing with space travel, it has to do with inertia and mostly gravity assists from the Sun and planets. I don't know why I even bother with this. To use the term "it's not rocket science" and also the term this is elementary, this is stupid. For starters go pick yourself up any Carl Sagan book and read. Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot will explain any and all questions you might have. Then pick up Broca's Brain and The Dragons of Eden to figure out your mental condition, maco144. Sorry bro, and I never use this term, but again you are either an idiot or a troll. There are plenty more books, but start there.

I for one, will continue to write nothing of substance. Sorry you can't grok that. It's on you.

I once got into a conversation with a woman many moons ago in the science section of a book store and we both lamented the likes of you. Thanks for reminding me of that. Haven't thought about it in forever.

DrEvil » Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:06 pm wrote:...there's something for the fuel to push against - the rocket.

Yep. It's really that simple.

Elihu » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:37 pm wrote:

DrEvil wrote:

Elihu » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:25 pm wrote:

If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back.

erroneous, this assumes gravity is acting upon you before anything happens in the first place. not there in supposed "space".

Erroneous. No gravity involved in that example. If you were throwing the bowling ball down in an attempt to go up, sure, gravity would mess it up for you, but going sideways the only thing gravity does is make you slow down and come to a stop because of friction. In space you would just keep going.

pointless sidebar. how easy it is to go astray.

so are those green/blue screens, harnesses, zero-g airplanes, mocked up models, water tanks, actors and unrelated rocket blast offs? or not?

I was just correcting your ignorance.

And no (generally speaking, I have no idea which ones you're talking about).

Belligerent Savant » Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:26 pm wrote:.

The focus of this particular inquiry is wholly unrelated to any 'flat earth' theory. 
‎
The 'spray can' analogy depicted a proposed action within (inside) a ship‎, where a vacuum wouldn't apply.

So: propellants and inertia‎ alone to escape moon's (albeit lesser) gravity and navigate precisely to the command module? The Rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, no?  Or are we subscribing to the premise that Rockets operate in a vacuum?

This nugget here is interesting:‎

The fragile-looking lunar module was just tough enough to keep two astronauts alive and carry them to the surface of the moon. The top half of the vehicle had its own rocket engine, which was fired to lift the astronauts back into lunar orbit to rejoin the command module.‎
‎
..Eagle had only about 30 seconds’ worth of fuel left at touchdown.‎

From
http://www.space.com/17411-apollo-11-mo ... aphic.html

30 seconds of fuel remaining upon landing on lunar soil.

My flat earth comment came in transit from another thread about Jill Stein, where it clearly didn't belong.

So there was 30 seconds of fuel left for the full thing together, both halves...and the top half would have its own fuel source to blast off--with the propulsion of the rocket pushing down so that the upper half takes off.

"Rockets and engines in space behave according to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. When a rocket shoots fuel out one end, this propels the rocket forward — no air is required. ... More fuel means more weight, which adds to the cost of a mission."

http://www.livescience.com/34475-how-do ... t-air.html

i read the first couple of pages and the last one. Did anyone really question if the earth is flat?

Its one thing any human can test for themselves if they have the time and motivation.

82_28 » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:46 pm wrote:Here's the thing with space travel, it has to do with inertia and mostly gravity assists from the Sun and planets. I don't know why I even bother with this. To use the term "it's not rocket science" and also the term this is elementary, this is stupid. For starters go pick yourself up any Carl Sagan book and read. Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot will explain any and all questions you might have. Then pick up Broca's Brain and The Dragons of Eden to figure out your mental condition, maco144. Sorry bro, and I never use this term, but again you are either an idiot or a troll. There are plenty more books, but start there.

I for one, will continue to write nothing of substance. Sorry you can't grok that. It's on you.

If you're going to post in this thread you should ask questions not just regurgitate indoctrinated Science lies that I've already disproven. Here's the thing with your supposed 'rocket science' - if I am arguing from a model that shows that there is no Universe billions of light years across then your entire concept planetary gravity assists is just a purely theoretical made from mathematical equations that don't represent reality. You're certain that gravity exists when actual intelligent scientists/journals aren't even sure about it. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... h-gravity/ or http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/gravity.html or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_b ... dard_Model or http://www.nature.com/news/gravity-riva ... 0#/trouble. Perhaps you should go tell PBS NOVA, Astronomy Today, and Nature to pick up a copy of Carl Sagan, I'm sure they'd be so grateful for your really intelligent, useful contribution .

See the thing is 82, Ive spent the time actually learning what all the counter points are and I can express the issues that are inherently flawed in believing in your Scientism. You just keep spouting off basic crap that any who studies this is well beyond. I know it's hard to accept but when I demonstrably show that every point you bring up is not conclusively how reality is, eventually you have to wonder if the model you pretend to know is actually the model of reality.

Joe Hillshoist » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:04 pm wrote:i read the first couple of pages and the last one. Did anyone really question if the earth is flat?

Its one thing any human can test for themselves if they have the time and motivation.

Welcome to the thread where we are debating if the earth is flat and what the Universe actually is. Feel free to share your insight!

You know, bro, I am not going to be condescended by you. I gave you the suggestion of a few books to read that are the easiest and most accessible. There are plenty more, as I said, plus college classes you can take. You can take a flight with a window seat. You can call a friend in Europe or hell even ask Joe where the Sun is in the sky. You can call your local weather man. You can call your local pilot who will laugh you away immediately. My brother is a pilot and he laughed his ass off at this conversation. Get on the Q and A site with the staff currently in orbit and submit a question or even an assertion and see if you make it onto NASA TV. There is 100% certainty that the Earth is not flat.