Jump to content
tatumsid

Rockets cannot propel in space.

Recommended Posts

On 6/24/2019 at 6:04 PM, Rupert Ugo said:

 

Twat.

Tard . You still can’t prove rockets in space 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 7:31 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

Rockets can propel in space. Once they are outside of the Earth's gravitational pull they become useless though, as they can only go in the direction they are facing, until they become attracted to some other gravitational force.

 

Long-distance space probes like the Voyager and Cassini probes have thruster jets on them (same principle as rocket engines but on a smaller scale), these just need a very short burst in order to generate enough thrust to alter the trajectory that the probe is heading in.

 

Unless the Voyager and Cassini probes are 'fake' as well?


After Milli-Vanilli, I just don't trust anything anymore. NOTHING. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

I can't prove anything to an imbecile.

Or anyone else for that matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently if you sit in a shopping trolley on a concrete surface holding a brick and then throw that brick in one direction, the shopping trolley will move in the opposite direction. I guess you could do it with a desk chair on tiles and fling a pumpkin at the wall or something.

 

Not sure if that helps either side of the debate, or neither, but thought I'd add it to the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some people who have too little experience of the real world sometimes claim that stuff they don't understand is fake. Why tatumsid has chosen rockets to be fake is odd given the evidence. Why doesn't he claim nuclear fusion is fake, giraffes or Australia? Oh, cos that would be stupid.

Not everyone is borne with the same pack of cards. And as I've said before, this forum is a great study area for non-neurotypicality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Janet W said:

 

Some people who have too little experience of the real world sometimes claim that stuff they don't understand is fake. Why tatumsid has chosen rockets to be fake is odd given the evidence. Why doesn't he claim nuclear fission is fake, giraffes or Australia? Oh, cos that would be stupid.

Not everyone is borne with the same pack of cards. And as I've said before, this forum is a great study area for non-neurotypicality...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, size of light said:

Apparently if you sit in a shopping trolley on a concrete surface holding a brick and then throw that brick in one direction, the shopping trolley will move in the opposite direction. I guess you could do it with a desk chair on tiles and fling a pumpkin at the wall or something.

 

Not sure if that helps either side of the debate, or neither, but thought I'd add it to the mix.

Sorry but throwing an object is not the same as gas movement due to pressure gradient force. The rockets doesn’t throw the gas out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Janet W said:

 

Some people who have too little experience of the real world sometimes claim that stuff they don't understand is fake. Why tatumsid has chosen rockets to be fake is odd given the evidence. Why doesn't he claim nuclear fusion is fake, giraffes or Australia? Oh, cos that would be stupid.

Not everyone is borne with the same pack of cards. And as I've said before, this forum is a great study area for non-neurotypicality...

Why can’t you demonstrate something that is apparently so easy to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tatumsid said:

Sorry but throwing an object is not the same as gas movement due to pressure gradient force. The rockets doesn’t throw the gas out

 

Fair enough, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tatumsid said:

Why can’t you demonstrate something that is apparently so easy to understand?

 

 

I did. A number of us did. Satellites are real and got there on rockets. I've told you before, go to Goonhilly on an open day to see how they 'fake' the following: satellite communications, satellite footprints, uplinks and down links, telemetry, propagation delay, polarization shifts, station keeping...

 

Then ask your silly questions and let us know what they say.

 

You really are not the full ticket are you?

Edited by Janet W
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 1:41 PM, size of light said:

 

Fair enough, I don't know.

 

It is exactly the same, ignore him. Rocket chucks out gas through the little hole, the reactive force sends it in the opposite direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 4:18 AM, size of light said:

Not sure if that helps either side of the debate, or neither, but thought I'd add it to the mix.

 

That’s not as snappy as your trademark “Just sayin’!”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 8:43 AM, Janet W said:

 

 

I did. A number of us did. Satellites are real and got there on rockets. I've told you before, go to Goonhilly on an open day to see how they 'fake' the following: satellite communications, satellite footprints, uplinks and down links, telemetry, propagation delay, polarization shifts, station keeping...

 

Then ask your silly questions and let us know what they say.

 

You really are not the full ticket are you?

So instead of a demonstration you’re just gonna be like oh look a satellite. Lol you can’t even prove their existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

I can't prove anything to an imbecile was what I said. The rocket activity in space, the physics, has already been proven. Sadly though, if you are actually an imbecile, you won't be able to see why. Hope that explains it for you.

If it was proven it would have been demonstrated by now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tatumsid said:

So instead of a demonstration you’re just gonna be like oh look a satellite. Lol you can’t even prove their existence.

 

Go to a satellite earth station on an open day and work out how they fake them. What have you to lose if you are confident you are right? You'll be easily able to see through their charade. 

 

Let us know how you get on will you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tatumsid said:

If it was proven it would have been demonstrated by now

 

This response of yours perfectly illustrates the quote you are unable to comprehend...

 

I can't prove anything to an imbecile was what I said. The rocket activity in space, the physics, has already been proven. Sadly though, if you are actually an imbecile, you won't be able to see why. Hope that explains it for you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Six Million Dollar Man said:

 

What would you accept as a demonstration of proof?

A demonstration showing a equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think tatumsid's job is to discredit the forum. Some of us are trying to show that not everyone on the forum is a tard, not that anyone anywhere gives a toss who writes what on here, apart from social psychology students. But anyway...

Edited by Janet W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 1:43 PM, Janet W said:

 

 

I did. A number of us did. Satellites are real and got there on rockets. I've told you before, go to Goonhilly on an open day to see how they 'fake' the following: satellite communications, satellite footprints, uplinks and down links, telemetry, propagation delay, polarization shifts, station keeping...

 

Then ask your silly questions and let us know what they say.

 

You really are not the full ticket are you?

Tatumsid is saying rockets dont work in space (I think he refers to vacuous space), he not saying rockets dont work in earths atmosphere.. so its really moot to the thread topic.

which is where all the terrestrial satellites are located as far as I am aware.

 

I think it was you who injected the 'satellites in space' earlier in the thread, but I wasnt a member back then to be able to correct you.

Hope this helps, thanks for the reminder 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 6:23 PM, Rupert Ugo said:

 

It is exactly the same, ignore him. Rocket chucks out gas through the little hole, the reactive force sends it in the opposite direction.

Does the gas not also hit the Materiel surrounding the small hole countering the effect of thrust from the perspective of rapid expansion in the chamber?

The rapidly expanding gas behind exiting thruster provides most forward thrust does it not?

 

Imagine this hypothetical scenario.

A huge vessel, the size of an airport hanger, cylindrical and made of huge section high grade carbon steel.

In one section a small flange with an opening of 75mm diameter, and on the bottom a hydraulic valve for extraction.

Now if a fire hose was clamped onto the flange so the hose aligns perfectly with the hole.

Then the vessel is pumped out of all air until it reaches a near perfect vacuum.

When the hose clamp is removed the hose will remain rigidly attached to the flange, held by the vacuum of the enormous vessel, with the hose devoid off all air, flat right up to the engine powered pump.

 

Now, when the pump is switched on and it generates pressure up to 400 psi..

Do you think the fire hose will push of the vacuous vessel?

If so, at what point will it push of the vessel?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ilimmu said:

Tatumsid is saying rockets dont work in space (I think he refers to vacuous space), he not saying rockets dont work in earths atmosphere.. so its really moot to the thread topic.

which is where all the terrestrial satellites are located as far as I am aware.

 

I think it was you who injected the 'satellites in space' earlier in the thread, but I wasnt a member back then to be able to correct you.

Hope this helps, thanks for the reminder 

 

Thanks ilimmu.

 

But satellites don't operate inside Earth's atmosphere - they can't. The drag while in orbit would bring them down in minutes or hours. They have to be at least 100 miles up, the ISS is about 300 miles up. Geostationary satellites are about 23,200 miles up over the equator.

 

The only argument is: "Where does space start?". It's usually defined at 62 miles up, still well inside the ionosphere. Even low-earth orbit satellites need to be outside the ionosphere for various reasons, drag being one of them.

 

Therefore the only way to get satellites into orbit in space is on rockets. Even tatumsid knows this or he would have come up with an alternative theory - which he hasn't.

 

Janet

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×