CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
As there are systems that are nearly isolated …ie a rocket approaching space…
A system in isolation cannot claim velocity by its own force.
F=ma was proposed in 1716 in a book by Jacob Hermann (1678-1733, Mathematician). Newton’s Principia (1st edition 1686, 2nd edition 1713, and 3rd edition 1726) does not contain this formula.
: If there were no gravity, and if the air did not impede the motion of bodies, then any body will continue its given motion with uniform velocity in a straight line.
: Every body under the sole action of its innate force moves uniformly in a straight line indefinitely unless something extraneous hinders it.
: Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.
What is an impressed force....This force consists in the action only, and remains no longer in the body when the action is over. For a body maintains every new state it acquires by its inertia only. But impressed forces are of different origins, as from percussion, from pressure, from centripetal force.
'Equal and opposite'
One problem frequently observed by physics educators is that students tend to apply Newton's Third Law to pairs of 'equal and opposite' forces acting on the same object.
What is an explosion….
Explosion is a rapid expansion process or explosive expansion…
What is Rapid expansion…
Pressure..
What is pressure….
Containment of gas impeding the expansion of molecules.
What is containment….
An inhabiting medium or a sealed container ie JAR with lid shut tight or an Atmosphere kept at homeostasis. The latter is a miracle in itself and there seems to be no other like it..and jars are special too.
What would an explosive expansion behave like in space….
Lets initiate a rapid chemical expansion that has its own source of oxygen…but first we have to talk about plasmodic decarboxultion.
Fire or the carbon fueled plasma reaction is an electrical phenomena….Degree of ionization. For plasma to exist, ionization is necessary. ... Even a partially ionized gas in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized can have the characteristics of a plasma (i.e., response to magnetic fields and high electrical conductivity).
SO can a fire burn in space even with a oxygen source?
Now back to the issue of pressure in a vacuum…
OK say we can make something burn and rapidly expand in space, what is it expanding against ? lets talk rocket chamber..
Deep on the recesses of a rocket motor there is a environment that is close to be a JAR with the lid on…can this place produce rapid exapnsion yes in theory if CHOKED FLOW conditions are sustained..
Awesome we have a pressure vessel that can contain SAY 1000psi..so this pressure vessel gas is static pressure with sub sonic velocity, which moves through the nozzle throat and gains a little velocity and pressure SAY 1001psi … So this gas now passes out of the nozzle throat into the divergent section and rapidly expands moving at super sonic veolcity…STOP this sounds like its great everything we need, Reaction, Containment, Acceleration and now lastly the most important factor FORCE..
Re-cap, sub sonic flow in the chamber of a static nature balanced and at pressure, SCIENCE determines erroneously that internally this chamber is receiving the bulk of the effort or kinetic energy being displaced against the opposite wall to the outlet.. BUT as ive explained in simple terms and it is verified in rocket theorem chamber gas velocity is static sub sonic velocity, and this static nature of the chamber certainly does not move the rocket, it is also evident that Divergent Nozzle surface area is quite large compared to chamber surface area and is where most 98percent of the kinetic energy is displaced externally to the reaction chamber and against the bulk of the surface area of the rocket motor..
OK so lets look at the supersonic velocity end of the motor where rapid expansion is taking place and we might even find a force for thrust..
Super sonic gas(funny how its measured against the threshold of the speed of sound, don't you think) Rapidly expanding against ?
This is where is gets sad for an astronaut, for example what if an astronaut wanted to go and swim in space, don't be silly there's no Air, Water, Buoyancy or any medium a thing can push itself off.. Where does this leave Rapidly expanding Chemical plasmodic reaction, unfortunately without force which is experimentally verified by JOULES EXPANSION..
Could it be that im a correct to say that an explosion in space is going to be a very anticlimactic flash without external compression with no impedance without force applied as the gas will not interact with itself or the environment or it origins of containment..
Could it be that im a correct to say that an explosion in space is going to be a very anticlimactic flash without external compression with no impedance without force applied as the gas will not interact with itself or the environment or it origins of containment
Why would an explosion not interact with its origin of containment?
The reaction has no impedance, or anything to contain and press upon it..
Joules Expansion experimentally verifies that gas released into a vacuum will not yield any force as the expansion is unhindered..It is determined that gas undergoes elastic collisions which transfer no energy to their surrounding or each other when freely expanding...Hence why a compressed gas maintains its pressure in containment and looses no energy so long as temp and containment are homogeneous.
If you open a soda bottle on earth it will slowly fizz and bubble if you do it space it will rapidly equalize in pressure but do so with no work applied, as the work of expansion is already done by the vacuum...
The combustion of the rocket fuel inside the rocket chamber is impeded by the chamber itself, giving the explosion direction. The expulsion of combusting fuel is not impeded outside the chamber, but it need not be for momentum to be acquired. This is because the rocket is expelling part of its overall mass in one direction so that it may move in the opposite. The mass of the fuel pushing away from the mass of the rocket causes momentum. No outside mass to cause impedence is needed.
You used swimming in space as an analogy. This wouldn't cause momentum, nor is it similar to rocket discharge. Rather, try imagine throwing a ball in space. This would release part of your overal mass in one direction, the force of which would produce momentum in the opposite direction.
Rockets work in space, not because expelled fuel pushes off an impeding mass, but because the rocket and the combusting fuel push away from each other.
You cite throwing mass, sure but the thing throwing mass is not imbalanced to create a moment of effort or push.
The rocket reaction chamber is not throwing mass or receiving an unbalanced force...chamber pressure is static lets say 1000psi of sub sonic velocity gas, the nozzle throat has sonic velocity gas and the divergent section is where gas is ultimately accelerated to supersonic velocity.
So the mass internal to the rocket is slow hot pressurized gas waiting to be accelerated..
Internal force is negligible compared to the reaction force of expansion against the atmosphere..
Consider a high velocity rifle, the bullet mass is greater than the propellant mass but the propellant mass yeilds 80percent or more recoil than the bullet mass, so mass is not the main contributor to force or momentum..
I mentioned earlier that F=ma is not a sound definition as it is unfalsifiable which has little credibility in physics..
Given what i have said the mass on mass reaction is not internal.
The reaction chamber is also open to space via the nozzle, so it would be prudent to assume that a reaction chamber has no viable chance of achieving pressure, RS(rocket scientist) counter this with the application choked flow..
Choked flow is a designed in parameter to ensure pressure information external to the rocket chamber is isolated from the reaction chamber, yet more admittance there is a balanced state internal to the chamber= no kinetic energy applied to chamber only pressure and heat..
but the thing throwing mass is not imbalanced to create a moment of effort or push
Why wouldn't it it be? Part of its overal mass is being propelled backward with nothing to push against except for the rest of its mass.
You are likely the only person here who knows about the particulars of the science you are discussing. I am speaking in broad concepts. So tell me, if you throw a basketball away from you in space, will you move in the opposite direction of the ball? If the answer is yes, then the same principle applies to throwing fuel away from a rocket.
First assumption of thrust in space is PROPELLED..
And the second problem is using BALListics or ball throwing as an analog..
You have been told internal force, spring force, recoil pushes the opposite wall internal to the rocket chamber, and to back up this erroneous concept F=ma slides in as the undeniable truth, how can one challenge a definition if it cannot be proven wrong or right ?
The reaction chamber is a pressure vessel not a reaction motor, when i say pressure vessel im mean the pressure is constant and balanced.. there is no reason why there should be a force of greater potential against any internal surface of the vessel..the pressure is evenly distributed across the entire internal surface...
If i pressurize a container say a tin and remove its lid the pressure equalizes with the external pressure the recoil the tin will experience is mainly due to the air outside the tin recoiling back into the tin as the pressurized air displaces the external air and must be replaced and this is the force that pushes the tin.. without external reaction mass internal mass has no impedance and will freely expand without any recoil... RECOIL IS AIR returning to its homogeneous state because of external air reacting to it..without this external reaction potential there is no recoil...
More example of highly energetic air on air reaction are the employment of muzzle brakes on high powered rifles eg 50calBMG...this rifle without a muzzle brake could not be fired by a person RAMBO included...the muzzle brake directs gas leaving the barrel back toward the shooter to counter force of the recoil pushing into their shoulder so the guns own redirected accelerated gas acts as a buffer and produces opposite thrust to the highly energetic atmospheric reaction of the gas leaving the gun.The bullet mass is negligible to the reaction from the atmosphere..
So throwing a ball has a value of recoil but it is insignificant compared to gas pressure differential friction..MASS is overplayed by NASA.. In fact if they dont use the definition of mass pushing the rocket internally they have no possibility of explaining how a rocket achieves thrust in space, it is the ace up their sleeve and unfalsifyable which is highly avoided by science unless it is a cornerstone like Emc2, but it like Newtons 2nd and 3rd laws is also unfalsifyable therefore it is only a definition not a fact!
To make it easier for you why dont we just look at why the SR-71 Blackbird ceilings at 25.9 km....
What makes a blackbird fly?...it has wings and they are in the AIR..but why do the wings lift the black bird only to 26km why not 30 ....30km is only 4km more why couldnt it get past that last 4km?????....
So how does a wing work??? and what is its relationship to AIR...?
The simple answer is the wings make lift they dont force mass against mass...realize what im am saying the Blackbird utterly complies to newtons laws but it is not forcing mass against mass... a wing utilizes bernoulis principles Bernoulli's principle - Wikipedia ....... notice how in the explanation below there is no mention of a wing forcing AIR down and itself up.....lift is pressure difference above the wing...birds and planes are lifted into the AIR because of differential AIR pressures....
Bernoulli's principle can be used to calculate the lift force on an airfoil, if the behaviour of the fluid flow in the vicinity of the foil is known. For example, if the air flowing past the top surface of an aircraft wing is moving faster than the air flowing past the bottom surface, then Bernoulli's principle implies that the pressure on the surfaces of the wing will be lower above than below. This pressure difference results in an upwards lifting force.
Are you with me so far? all good science nothing made up....
So for what reason does a Blackbird ceiling at 25.9km this must have something to do with the wing or the AIR or is it both?? primarily it is because of the LACK OF AIR to provide a pressure differential therefore no lift and coefficients are below required optimum performance for LIFT...
So now you say but a rocket is different it doesnt need Bernoulis Principles to PUSH itself of its exhaust....well for one fact is it does need BP as these principles are at play in the nozzle facilitating the CHOKED FLOW CONDITION .....where the flow that is choked super sonic shockwaves form....this is fine all very sciencey and above board...
But what about the super sonic gas that is released by the rocket, what is it pushing?....You believe and science SAYS it is pushing the opposite wall to the outlet of the reaction chamber.....But this is not the case for the reason of choked flow determines that nozzle throat pressure CHOKED FLOW ensures that pressure information external to the rocket cannot enter the chamber...this would indicate the throat pressure is higher than the chamber pressure.....so if chamber pressure is 1000psi then throat pressure would be above this say 1001psi...wouldnt you agree this means chamber pressure is static 1000psi without imbalance over the nozzle outlet...this simply renders the chamber to be a PRESSURE VESSEL not a REACTION MOTOR.....
Now what is actually pushing the rocket up???
Thrust the accelerated heated pressurized gas is released from the nozzle and encounters some interesting terrain...firstly it encounters the diverging shape of the nozzle bell and secondly it encounters a fluid call it AIR...
As the accelerated gas lets say its 1001 psi meets the AIR at sea level at 14.5 psi the rocket gas suddenly depressurizes to say half its pressure as it travels through the nozzle bell and this happens so suddenly the AIR out side cannot move fast enough and suddenly becomes viscous(THICK) but something must give as the AIR is not very viscous at all...at this stage where pressure information exceeds the ability of the air to react which forms a pressure wave which moves faster than the speed of sound, and the air in its attempt to follow this pressure wave forms a shockwave and passes the pressure information via the medium of molecule proximity provided by AIR(NEWTONS CRADLE).....But this is just the beginning....the released accelerated gas is re pressurized by the delayed AIR reaction to move out of the way and each time this happens because of the Atmospheric opposite reaction, conditions are pushing AIR and shockwaves in opposite direction of the released rocket thrust against the rocket thrust...the visual evidence of this are SHOCK DIAMONDS...All of what i have explained here is due to Bernoulis priciples.....
So what happens if there is no AIR can the rocket still be pushed by it own shockwaves internally to the throat(not chamber)...NO IT CANT this where a rocket fails to meet the criteria of the third law equals and opposites...shockwaves produced by the rocket require a propagatiing medium to return force into the nozzle to create shockwaves...without an external Fluid(AIR) medium the rocket cannot function.....
I will get to F=ma and pressure in a moment, but first I need you to answer a question. You said that ballistics is a bad analog. With a simple yes or no, if you threw a. All in space, would you move in the opposite direction that you there the ball? No explanation, Just a yes or a no.
Your question is directed to presume that you can grab the ball in space, you think its like asking me if i jump in the air will i come back down...and i can only answer to the logical observable fact that yes i will come back to the ground...you believe if you threw a gas at force it will continue in its path in an opposite direction until something else interacts with it.
The ball is cohesive mass it does not disassociate from itself it is ridged, Gas of a pressure on the other hand is point masses it is a continuum of pressure with potential kinetic energy whilst in a containment..
So superimpose the way a gas will behave onto a ball in a place where gas cannot possibly be a gas of pressure.
And Im sorry a simple yes no answer cannot explain all phenomena.
What gas in space lacks that a ball has is opposite torque..Gas is a continuum of point masses that have elastic collisions as determined by Joules Expansion and Kinetic Molecular Theory...
This is a simple explanation of elastic collisions. And things like balls or solids don't have elastic collisions they have inelastic collisions.
Gas molecules exert no force on each other unless they collide. Collisions of molecules with each other or the walls of the container do not decrease the energy of the system. The molecules of a gas are in constant and random motion. The temperature of a gas depends on its average kinetic energy avg(1/2mv 2) = 3/2kT .
So now do see why it is preferred by rocket science that gas is referred to as mass not point masses...
Imagine a tube open at both ends. Now i wish to raise the pressure inside the tube whilst it is in space..
Ok lets block off one end and try to raise the pressure internally....??
So what is the problem with this tube that it wont achieve pressure whilst it is in space or the atmosphere ?
Hence the vital importance of CHOKED FLOW...or a valve that can either restrict pressure escaping or stop it all together..
So a rocket need a valve in the atmosphere, convergent divergent nozzles are designed to choke the flow and are utterly necessary for a rocket to achieve high velocities with efficiency these nozzle are designed for altitude optimum performance, meaning they must be of different configurations to be efficient at different altitudes. This design altitude relationship clearly shows the dependence of the rocket engine on its environment. And also clearly shows momentum of mass is only relevant as an external reaction not internal...as the chamber doesn't need to change as it environment changes with attitude like the nozzle must..
F=ma cannot tell you why a rocket will work in space as a rocket is practically isolated once it nears space..and the 2nd and 3rd laws cannot deal with isolated systems...or massless particles, it is classical physics that evolved from religion,occult and alchemy...Isacc newton was an occultist and studied alchemy he was highly religious. And deep research into religion will show the occult as its nervous system and the denominations to be fronts to keep the secrets secret..
I didn't read any of that because I want you to answer a question. If you throw an object in space, will you move in the opposite direction that you threw it?
This question does not presume anything, if you throw something, you will either move in the opposite direction or not. These truly are the only two possible outcomes. Forget the analogy I presented and answer with a yes or a no, and then we can proceed, but not before.
You did read it, it just didnt conform to consensus version of reality, read and re ask me...you cant be that indignant not to peruse my answer....what you thought was checkmate ended in more time for me..
You wish to show there is no refute against one mass moving another mass..
I dont refute sciences terminology of what a mass is, i refute its configuration and its behavior in different environments, they cannot be compared and you know it...but the rocket cause falters without a mass upon mass reaction that is internal to the rocket motor of which there is none....
The only way for a rocket to function is to produce heated pressurized gas , accelerate it and then force it against an ambient medium such as AIR, acceleration of gas through the nozzle utterly depends upon resistance externally to the rocket...
Let explore the limit of a gas velocity entering a vacuum which is known....
Question:
Is there a formula or rule-of-thumb for making a rough estimate of the rate of air loss in a space craft for a given size air leak?
Answer
The quick approximation is that the air will flow out of the hole at the speed of sound.
For a more detailed calculation, Professor Andrew Higgins of McGill University gives the following answer:
The air will leak through the hole at sonic velocity (Mach one at constriction of the leak).
So the speed of sound is THE maximum velocity a gas can enter space....
SO this gives us another question why is the speed of sound the threshold of the velocity of escaping gas despite the internal pressure of the container Be it low or high...This answer needs its own thread so i wont go into it now...
So mach one at the constriction of the leak, is the leak behaving like a rocket nozzle?
Yes, the leak is choked flow of gas at a sonic velocity, and pressure at the leak will be above the internal ambient pressure because molecules are congesting the flow as they sort out which are leaving and in which order, like a traffic jam at the speed of sound....So if the pressure is higher at the leak internaly what does this say about the reaction between the gas and the internal space...STATIC without kinetic energy applied...it a leak at a predetermined rate of flow at a higher pressure than the space craft.
Joules expansion explains what is happening here and it comes down to the gas leaving without force applied and the gas is released not forced thrown or thrusted ...once gas is outside the craft it becomes disassociated molecules which do not interact with each other or the space craft...
Definitions that cannot be unfalsifyable, cannot be presumed to be facts. F=ma has such a status as it fails in explaining mass-less systems and isolated systems, and a rocket is the latter an isolated system in the practical terms of mechanical thrust and its force…
Congratulations. You've apparently lost the only person who was interested hashing this out with you. All because you refuse to answer a simple question about a ball and instead insist that no answer is necessary so long as a ball is not a gas.
You can bring me back to discuss the finer points if you ever decide to answer the simple question, directly and without explanation.
Yes he possibly is the only person who knows the exact science , but the answer to your question is a resounding yes indeed you will move in the opposite direction to the ball
Imagine you are floating in space if you take off a shoe and throw it away from you really fast, you will move in the opposite direction from your shoe. You can even do this without going into space if you are standing on a very low friction surface like ice.
I know the answer is yes, and so does he. He won't answer, or follow my line of reasoning because he knows where it is going. Most of what he posts is a distraction from the primary principles at work. He also challenges the validity of definitions that are not falsifiable by virtue of the fact that they are definitions, as if the fact that you cannot disprove "noun=person, place, or thing" means sentence structures cannot be validated. He also believes that recoil is a phenomenon of atmosphere when it clearly it is a phenomenon of matter (as your answer illustrates).
It doesn't matter though, I refuse to discuss the matter of matter and movement until we can get at least one thing straight, and that is his understanding of what would happen if you threw a ball in space.
The exchange was interesting and your reasoning was sound , the reason I interjected was in hope he might continue by actually answering the question and let the debate reach its conclusion .
Amarel and dermot, these debate sites are quite prolific and there are science and physics pages as well, i have no shortage of outlets for discussion, in fact i have to limit my activity to make it easier on me...
Amarel can pout all they like, i explained the issue about the question of representation of mass...You Both along with aerospace will have the masses believe mass is just mass...
A rocket cannot thrust eject throw or push mass above and beyond the speed of sound in space, WHY i will let you both ponder on that.
Solids are best defined as occupying a constant volume and retaining their shape when moderate forces are applied to them.
Liquids also occupy a constant volume but easily change shape to match that of their container by flowing to form a horizontal surface. They are said to ‘flow’ easily or be ‘runny’ or ‘wetting’ and can withstand moderate compressive forces.
A gas can occupy any size container, is also able to ‘flow’ and can be easily compressed with moderate forces.
Ok for the sake of a Rocket you cannot compare throwing a ball to releasing a gas at the speed of sound...
What if we look at the analogy, in this way.
I am on a skate board, in an atmosphere.. And I can like a whip move my hand at a velocity greater than the speed of sound.
What would the reaction be ? I believe you have heard whips crack yes?
Cavitation
Inertial cavitation is the process where a void or bubble in a liquid rapidly collapses, producing a shock wave. And we hear a loud crack from a whip when this happens.
DO you believe I would move on my skateboard if i could crack my hand like a whip ?
Ok i will save time here and say yes for you, so why would I move, im not throwing mass.?
Moving my hand so fast will create pressure waves which precede my hand this effect displaces atmosphere faster than it can move out of the way so it must compress and it creates a high pressure front, now behind my hand there is another interesting situation, a low pressure void or cavity, so now which way do you think i will move away from the high pressure or toward the low pressure? The answer is toward the low pressure and away from the high pressure just like a wing, and Bernoulli principles determine this.
Ok so we have ascertained we CAN use pressure and velocity crated by my hand(thrust) forced against another gas as a spring using my arm as a lever...
The only way a rocket can push off the earth is using this principle, as throwing mass at the ground will give no reaction as gravity cancels it at the rate of 9.8msec. And a rocket has no internally displaced kinetic energy not until after the nozzle throat does a rocket receive an opposite reaction and only when there is sufficient buoyancy from the atmosphere, hence the term SPACE SHIP...
Take away the AIR and you have no propulsion.
Now do what you have to do, is to rebute my contention, that throwing a ball in space has absolutely nothing to do with a rocket and its gas(not solid)thrust in a void.
An object in isolation cannot claim a velocity by its own impressed force.
Rocketsnedda , I'm not pouting at all and I doubt very much Amarel is , is this the way you go about when one is merely asking you to answer a question with a yes or no ?
I've waded into this debate as it caught my attention and I've no doubt you're an expert on these matters and I hoping you might continue by answering what was in fairness a good question by Amarel and yet you refuse to answer , why is that ?
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 , so what Amarel stated is indeed accurate as in throwing fuel away from the rocket uses the very same principle as in throwing a basketball away in space .
So again to repeat , you say take away the air and you have no propulsion, incorrect
NO AIR IS REQUIRED
Your position is lost why do you persist ?
The answer to Amarels question is indeed a yes stating otherwise is merely childish and does nothing to further the debate
Im not an expert but due to the research Ive done these past months i would say i am highly informed...more than some aerospace guys ive talked to, who really didn't understand CHOKED FLOW, and why the speed of sound is a threshold for gas expansion into a vacuum which is experimentally verified..
I intricately explained a yes or no answer to the question of throwing mass in a vacuum is not possible...and its obvious why.
F=ma cannot be used to explain massless particles or isolated systems such as a rocket in a vacuum devoid of boundaries...
Your statement is official company criteria, why does nasa not talk about JOULES EXPANSION or Bernoullis principles...they cant it will ruin the illusion that mass in motion is prime, which it isn't.
It is utterly necessary that opposite torque from the rockets exhaust be the pivotal force otherwise they have nothing, think about that...
In conclusion to use F=ma is a fopar, an embarrassing mistake...Newtons second and third laws are not very good science for a rocket in a vacuum..
A rocket in space is isolated it cannot raise a pressure in space whilst the nozzle is open to vacuum..
Right now try pumping up tyre that has a large hole or tear in it ... why cant you raise the pressure of this tyre?
The same applies to rockets in a vacuum without boundaries..
You have a mass(ball) but you cannot throw it.
So asking the question what would happen if you threw a ball in space has ZERO relevance to rocket thrust, the question is loaded to roll in favor of the misconception of applied force due to pressure accelerating mass..
You cannot accelerate gas entering space vacuum. Period.
Can you point me in the direction of the data that supports your statement regarding why the speed of sound is a threshold for gas expansion ?
You were asked a question but wouldn't give a one word answer as in yes /no now you are saying throwing mass in a vacuum is not possible which means your answer is no ; this means you are incorrect .
If you feel an injustice has been done please feel free to post up data as in a clear concise explanation of this exact topic as in ... Throwing mass in a vacuum is not possible , that's fair isn't it ?
My statement is official company criteria ? Its actually basic science as I told you I'm no expert but I enjoy reading about science and 'get by ' in most conversations on the subject ;
it seems like you think NASA have some hidden agenda ?
So let's summarise NASA won't talk about Joules Expansion or Bernoullis principles because it will ruin the illusion that mass in motion is prime , F= ma is an embarrassing mistake , Newtons second and third laws are not very good science for a rocket in a vacuum .
Newtons laws are very good science and work perfectly well regarding a rocket in space .
When propellant is expelled into the vacuum of space, an equal and opposite re-action pushes the rocket forward. Because of the lack of atmosphere, it’s usually more efficient, too.
Incredible you've turned my world of science on its head , maybe you can back it up with a paper or research article that supports your assertions , because expert or not you're wrong .
Is there a formula or rule-of-thumb for making a rough estimate of the rate of air loss in a space craft for a given size air leak?
Answer
The quick approximation is that the air will flow out of the hole at the speed of sound.
For a more detailed calculation, Professor Andrew Higgins of McGill University gives the following answer:
The air will leak through the hole at sonic velocity (Mach one at constriction of the leak).
You said :You were asked a question but wouldn't give a one word answer as in yes /no now you are saying throwing mass in a vacuum is not possible which means your answer is no ; this means you are incorrect .
No that's not what i said, i said that throwing a ball in space has nothing to do with the propulsion of a rocket, therefore it is a moot point.
Throwing, ejecting, thrusting or forcing as gas into space is impossible, this is verified by the Joules Expansion experiment..
The outcome of the Joules expansion experiment verifies that gas molecules do not speed up under expansion. The threshold is the speed they can communicate pressure information to surrounding molecules whilst in containment...release gas into vacuum of space and molecules have no impedance(containment) and therefore this is no longer a gas of pressure..
Rocket thrust in the atmosphere is NOT mass pushing the inside of the reaction chamber rushing out of the rocket like balls ...
Thrust is no different in concept to newtons cradle as the balls dont change position they merely communicate a force from one ball to the next the same as waves move over the surface of water, the water molecules dont go far they just rise up and down.
You start to understand that force is not internal to a rocket when you actually realize what thrust is and how the AIR is critical as containment, as it is the other half of the reaction motor commonly called a rocket.
A rocket is purely a pressure vessel that can accelerate a gas to create displacement and in turn shockwaves which the rocket rides upon like a vertically surfing tube...
And to set the record straight newton second and third laws are unfalsifyable and science avoids this type of dilemma.
I haven't even mentioned the first law of thermo dynamics...
A way of expressing the first law of thermodynamics is that any change in the internal energy (∆E) of a system is given by the sum of the heat (q) that flows across its boundaries and the work (w) done on the system by the surroundings:
Heres your home work, show me how a rocket interacts with its surroundings in space ?
Thank you for the links but you never addressed what I asked as in a clear statement , you're dancing around what was asked by stating the throwing of a ball in space has nothing to with the propulsion of a rocket but yet the same principle applies as in the throwing away of fuel from a rocket so you're incorrect .
Newtons third law basically says that if you shoot out stuff in one direction you will move in the other direction. This is how rockets work in a vacuum. They have a source of fuel which is heated up so that it expands and is pushed out of the rocket.
We have all seen it in action if you have ever blown up a balloon and then let go of it before tying it up. What pushes the balloon all around the room is the air you blew into it escaping.
You say .... rocket thrust in the atmosphere is not mass pushing the inside of the reaction chamber rushing out of the rocket like balls .....
I did not say that ,
It is not necessary for the rocket exhaust to push against anything EXCEPT THE SHIP ITSELF. You see, when the combustion of fuel takes place inside the rocket (think of a long vertical cylinder with the 'bottom' open) the exhaust gasses produced expand quickly in all directions. The molecules slam into anything in their path exerting a small force each. Thus some molecules push against the 'right' side and some push against the 'left' side, and all these sideways forces cancel each other out. Some molecules slam against the 'top' of the cylinder, but since there is no bottom of the cylinder, there is no force to cancel this out! Therefore the net force will be in the 'up' direction.
This is basic science and no big mystery .
Or to put it in a way that may be more palatable to you ,
Another way to think about the situation is as a conservation of momentum problem. Any isolated system will conserve total momentum. Thus if you imagine a stationary ship, plus the fuel and oxygen molecules on the ship, p=0. If a few trillion atoms of exhaust are shot in one direction into the vacuum of space, the rest of the ship must move in the OPPOSITE direction with the same momentum (mass x velocity)
I have no need of your 'homework ' in actual fact I think it is you who needs a bit more home work , but no doubt the world of science is totally incorrect as your dismissal of scientitific principles has been dismissed by your good self .
Also I note you stated this in an earlier reply ......
..Isacc newton was an occultist and studied alchemy he was highly religious. And deep research into religion will show the occult as its nervous system and the denominations to be fronts to keep the secrets secret.......
Yours and aerospace's assumption is that an isolated system is thrusting mass and receiving a opposite reaction from it own ejected(thrown)mass what is your proof gas is pushing the rocket internally? A formula ? that declares FORCE equals therefore it is?
You believe and so do the majority of observers that there is internal recoil from an unbalanced condition due to gas being forced through a constriction and let to rapidly expand once though it. And once gas has left the rocket it is irrelevant..
Let me point put to you all, the chain of events from chamber to the inhabiting medium(AIR/space)
We will take it for granted there can be pressure achieved inside an open container in a vacuum ? which is impossible, but for the sake of the discussion we will assume 1000psi in the reaction chamber, static 1000psi this SUB SONIC heated pressurized gas enters the convergent section of the exhaust, the pressure at the initial opening of the nozzle is higher NOT lower than chamber pressure say 1001psi as gas passes through the nozzle it gains SONIC velocity and as it reaches the divergent section only then it obtains its SUPERSONIC velocity..So wouldn't this speak to you by itself that force is external against the nozzle and nozzle bell(divergent) section of the rocket where the gas is at its fastest velocity ..
Rocket science utterly relies upon internal force mass on mass reaction because space cannot support Bernoullis principles which describe the process of shockwave formation and propagation upon which a rocket utterly depends for shock waves to form in the nozzle throat to achieve CHOKED FLOW..
You want to know all the secrets well they wouldnt be secrets if we knew, but rest assured I am revealing one to you right ATM..
It boils downs to this. By experimental verification determined by JOULES EXPANSION you simply cannot force thrust eject or throw gas into a vacuum and expect a force returned by doing so, as a rocket is isolated and therefore F=ma does not apply..
Given Ive allowed a container to achieve a positive pressure which is impossible in space, a rocket still is unable to utilize an accelerated gas point mass continuum that doesnt interact with itself or the rocket..
I've already explained this it is not necessary for the rocket exhaust to push against anything EXCEPT THE SHIP ITSELF. When the combustion of fuel takes place inside the rocket (think of a long vertical cylinder with the 'bottom' open) the exhaust gasses produced expand quickly in all directions. The molecules slam into anything in their path exerting a small force each. Thus some molecules push against the 'right' side and some push against the 'left' side, and all these sideways forces cancel each other out. Some molecules slam against the 'top' of the cylinder, but since there is no bottom of the cylinder, there is no force to cancel this out! Therefore the net force will be in the 'up' direction.
The physical proof is the rocket moves in the opposite direction to the gas being expelled .
Is this not clear enough for you ?
why do you keep coming back with long winded counters that only muddy the waters .
"I've already explained this it is not necessary for the rocket exhaust to push against anything EXCEPT THE SHIP ITSELF."
You are explaining force internal to the reaction chamber moving a subsonic velocity is what accelerates a rocket to supersonic velocity.. INTERNAL force is STATIC sub sonic velocity at 1140psi for a Merlin1D rocket motor.
Obviously you fail to PROPERLY comprehend "equals and opposites" it a common mistake..
: Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.
What is an impressed force....This force consists in the action only, and remains no longer in the body when the action is over. For a body maintains every new state it acquires by its inertia only. But impressed forces are of different origins, as from percussion, from pressure, from centripetal force.
'Equal and opposite'
One problem frequently observed by physics educators is that students tend to apply Newton's Third Law to pairs of 'equal and opposite' forces acting on the same object. A ROCKET IS ISOLATED in space, it force is isolated its exhaust is isolated.
Impressed forces are of different origins, Rocket is the origin of the gas, gas is the origin or pressure and carries potential kinetic energy, gas IS NOT PUSHING or applying kinetic energy internal to the rocket. The rocket is a PRESSURE VESSEL of static 1000psi SUBSONIC heated pressurized gas and only can be such whilst it is contained in atmospheric containment where its contained by the envelope of the earth atmosphere of containment..EMPHASIS CONTAINMENT..
You want to control what I say and how I say it ? Just accept i am being particularly comprehensive and am delivering a cultural and significant diagnosis of an elementary misconception... long winded is just your reaction to new information the usurps consensus opinion..and it isnt the first time this sort of thing has happened in history as Medical science has had many ideas challenged and overturned in the light of better observations and techniques...How would you like to operated on in the field during the civil war??
But i digress.
You, as the majority have taken Newtons third law and applied it to one object Rocket/Gas with it own impressed force which is incorrect application of the law of equals and opposites...
Just so we are on the same page, where does a rocket receive the force of the kinetic energy that propels its mass, is it internal opposite the outlet nozzle or is it external from the chamber through the nozzle and nozzle bell? In your answer try to remember the experimentally verified results of JOULES EXPANSION.
Pls dont get pouty about my enthusiasm to my research as i am 100% backed by science and i dont use formulas that are applied incorrect..
You cite the proof of F=ma is the rocket moving..that is so scientific it breaks my brain..occurrences are not causes any scientist knows this..
You said ......throwing a ball in space has nothing to do with the propulsion of a rocket, therefore it is a moot point.
Throwing, ejecting, thrusting or forcing as gas into space is impossible, this is verified by the Joules Expansion experiment..
A rocket engine is generally throwing mass in the form of a high-pressure gas. The engine throws the mass of gas out in one direction in order to get a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass comes from the weight of the fuel that the rocket engine burns. The burning process accelerates the mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speed. The fact that the fuel turns from a solid or liquid into a gas when it burns does not change its mass. If you burn a pound of rocket fuel, a pound of exhaust comes out the nozzle in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The form changes, but the mass does not. The burning process accelerates the mass.
You also claimed an object in isolation cannot claim a velocity
An object is at rest “in isolation”. If it is creating thrust, accelerating, then it and its exhaust create a “rest” frame, and it is no longer in isolation. If it is spinning, say to create artificial gravity, again a separate “rest frame” is created.
I do not want to control what you say and how you say it , what I wanted was for you to answer a simple yes /no question which you refused to do without going off on another spiel which seems to be an excercise in self gratification on your part but nothing else .
Regards me pouting I normally leave that to the ladies , I am smiling in contentment because you seem to be from the school of .... If you cannot baffle them with bullshit blind them with science ......
You're talking nonsense at this stage in an attempt to evade defeat I'm not convinced .
Thanks , I enjoyed it for a while then it got very frustrating , I still think the original point you made was fair and was worth pursuing but after several more posts it bacame a futile exercise .
Evading defeat is what a competitor avoids, this may be a debate but there are no prizes.
Just try to comprehend what i have said and realize your world is not perfect nor will you travel to space using mechanical thrust.
Try not to take it personally that you are wrong. Its not your fault but you are believing in a boys dream that he would some day go to space his name is ROBERT GODDARD..I will in successive posts put down some important information about Robbert.
Ironically a rocket is no different to a pressurized tank full of propane...
The valve prevents external pressure information entering the internal pressure environment or escaping the tank…..essentially the flow of released gas is choked by the valve, this is a condition designed into rocket nozzles and is critical to the performance of the rocket in the AIR.
The propane tank is releasing pressure that is proportional to its pressure and volume reducing..
Now we have established the propane tank is releasing gas not forcing it out.
So this means there is no force returned internally to the bottle upstream from the valve...
Where is force returned to the propane bottle if it is not internally?
The force is returned to the valve externally IF the bottle were inhabiting a medium to share/return force with the released gas, in space this is impossible as the gas is freely expanding without force needed or force produced...a positive pressure external to a container cannot exist in space.
The rocket has even less chances of a propane bottle of obtaining momentum..why?
Because the choked condition of a rocket nozzle is not a solid valve or a valve that is solid, choked flow relies on the upstream pressure to produce a congestion of gas mass and velocity that permits chamber pressure to become static and separated from external pressure information/enviroment. And this means like the propane bottle the force produced that propels a rocket is due to the AIR reacting to the released thrust externally, the force exists between the nozzle throat(Choked Flow) and the external inhabiting medium AIR as space cannot reciprocate a force ....
The issue i have with gas as the mass that pushes a rocket internally is that the reaction chamber is a static pressure environment like the propane tank but its pressure is renewed by a constant reaction, but it still utterly relies upon the choked condition of the nozzle making the reaction chamber a pressure vessel not a reaction motor…The reaction chamber of a rocket is purely a pressure vessel..
You normally don't consider things that can freely move past one another as the same object kinetically.
BigOats, math is a good tool its function is to predict and calculate variables in models. So the achilles heel of maths is the model you are using yes some are GOOD ENOUGH but are still incorrect due to simple reason of definitions of our universe which are based on models, so you can now understand the issue with maths and its presumptions aligned with preconceived outcomes determined by the model..
So put your calculator down and realize this fundamental error in the above equation MOMENTUM FLUX due to emission..This is assumed and not even explained as if it is an empirical definition like F=ma which is not empirical and cannot be proven correct or false it is unfalsifiable. Occurrences are not causes.. Where do you cite anywhere in the rocket equation the effect of Joules Expansion and shockwave interaction with an external medium AIR...
I dispute the relevance of any rocket equation as none use vacuum principles or shock-waves created from displacement of fast hot gas meeting slow cool gas as components of force and lack off force once craft reach near vacuum of space...
So do please show me your revised equation when it includes the above missing components Joules Expansion and Bernoullis principles explaining shockwaves.. Otherwise your math is just a shopfront without merchandise in the rear.
I'm going to admit up front I don't know the science. This isn't my field.
But what I do think I know is past space ships have indeed had rockets used to help steer, whether it was to adjust orbit or flight path, which means even if they didn't work for increasing thrust and speed they do work in some limited capacity.
Hi, ill be upfront im not much of a debater, so my delivery and info may staggered....
Rockets rely upon an internal chemical reaction.
Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.
Fire is an oxidizing chemical reaction that releases heat and light. The actual flames that you see moving and glowing when something is burning are simply gas that is still reacting and giving off light. Plasma are gases in which a good fraction of the molecules are ionized.
Ionization is the process by which an atom or a molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons to form ions, often in conjunction with other chemical changes.
A rocket has the adequate components to create a chemical reaction, BUT fire is a plasma which is an electrical phenomena.
Vacuum is a poor conductor in fact it is a very poor conductor, if i could create a bubble of atmosphere in space and start a fire in it, it wouldn't burn as there is no earth or positive dynamic to conduct the plasmodic reaction that creates fire...
Lets not put the cart before the horse, lets establish the validity of the workhorse to perform in different arenas.
Rocket science explicitly determines that rockets can function in space due to Newtons laws... They say nothing about Joules expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jouleexpansion
RS(rocket scientists) give no credence to the atmosphere as the opposite torque mechanism for rocket thrust, this issue being that it would create attention to the limits of thrust and where it can exist...
So RS use opposite mass reaction over time F=ma
This is where it becomes muddy,we cannot by experimentation show F=ma to be false or correct it is unfalsifieable, which is convenient for RS as it shelters their workhorse..
So you would presume that vacuum chambers are the answer to my questions?
Well there is an inherent problem with a chambers parameters, it is containment and will shorten the mean free path of molecules released by the test subject. This will create a temporary environment with walls for reflection of pressure waves and gaseous trace atmosphere for thrust to push against...
Oh and im sory about the dispute tag on your reply im new here :)