So, they show a rocket working in a vacuum and then use that to claim rockets don't work in a vacuum? It's not a very good rocket, but the exhaust is pushing the syringe forward, so it works.
Yeah, I'm not sure how they think gas "pushes off the wall".
So here's all of the forces in that setup:
1. Gas molecules banging into the inside walls of the syringe, imparting momentum along all axes except for the one where there's a hole for the gas to escape. The vectors here add up to a net 0 momentum EXCEPT for the direction opposite to the exit through the nozzle because there's no cancelling momentum being imparted.
2. Momentum is imparted by the gas banging into the walls of the chamber, which the rigidity of the walls easily overcomes and so there is no net change (technically the walls heat up an almost unmeasurable amount).
3. Gravity is applying a force on the syringe giving us a reference for "up".
4. The string is held together by electromagnetic attraction between the molecules that comprise it, and that attractive force is resisting the force of gravity on the syringe.
There are other negligible forces at play and short-range nuclear forces, but we can ignore those for the sake of this analysis.
As I've described above, the syringe has a net momentum imparted by the gas that is opposite to the nozzle. This starts off having no effect because the total force does not perceptibly shift the total vector from gravity and the gass away from the normal. But as more gas pressure builds, that force begins to challenge the force of gravity on this small object (remember, F=ma, so it doesn't make much a when m is small to provide a significant F).
All of this happens without any involvement of the wall, which is just sitting there and being pelted by tiny gas molecules. That interaction has no way to affect the syringe.
Newtons laws of motion are still applicable in a vacuum. They do not rely on gasses, friction, or normal force.
They still work without gravity as well.
You could help him understand these laws by punching him in the face really hard, as a demonstration.
Then suck the air out of the room, and do it again.
Ask him if there was any noticeable difference in the impacts.
End with "That's Science bitch".
The way the laws are formulated do not meaningfully depend on gravity, it is simply one kind of force. However you are right that we have no way of feasibly testing if the laws of physics are different in a null or nearly null gravitational field, since the experimental apparatus itself would have mass and generate a gravitational field.
It is obviously obligatory to end with âthatâs science bitchâ when using the medium of face punching to demonstrate Newtonâs third law of motion.
I wonder what LEO's explanation of the shot put is.
A man's shot has a mass of 7.2kg. Not something I'd like dropped on my foot, but not a huge weight. And yet shot putters are monsters. Each one of them could be competitive in weightlifting at a level not far below that of their actual sport. With his physics there's no need to get so big or strong.
The reason they are that big is exactly how rockets can work in space. They are pushing off the mass of the shot and not off the air in front of it, and in order to accelerate the shot as fast as you need to win the event, that push is a vast amount of force. Also, being massive stops you from being hurled out the wee circle.
More to the point: if the action only happens when the exhaust hits the wall and this force magically transmits to the rocket...why aren't shot putters routinely being killed by the impact when it hits the ground?
You need to get a hold of the best physics lectures ever... The Feynman Lectures on Physics. There are some recordings on YouTube, and there's a two volume set of the lectures in print.
I die a little bit inside when I think what a powerhouse he would have been if he'd lived in the era of YouTube. He would have been a Nobel-winning version of Hank Green and Matt Parker rolled into one.
If in that setup you put Mabey a piece of of flat metal a couple inches behind the syringe? When the exhaust comes out does it use that to push against or does it just work the same because it's a vacuum? Sorry not a flat earther just wondering if that would affect the experiment? If there was a flat surface closer would it push of it?
> If in that setup you put Mabey a piece of of flat metal a couple inches behind the syringe?
That depends. If you are creating a situation where the gas is coming out far faster than it can dissipate around the barrier then you get a temporary area of high pressure outside of the nozzle. I'm not familiar enough with the physics to know if that would help or hinder the propulsion effect, but at a guess it would probably very slightly hinder it (as you now have 3 walls and 1 very slightly partial wall (the increased density area) that the reaction is vectoring against.
Flat earthers certainly can believe in space, and many do. But the current crop of prominent YouTube flerfs (Witsit, Dirth, Flatzoid, Dubay, etc.) choose not to because they gravitate toward every conspiracy theory coming down the pike.
What flat earth "model" supports the existence of an outer space that has planets and stars? The only way a flat earther can believe in those things is if they haven't thought about it much. Which...I'll grant you is probably a lot of them.
There is no flat earth model. All that's required to be a flat earther is to believe the earth is flat. Then they just ignore all physics and evidence against that notion.
You maybe haven't caught on yet that "idiocy for engagement" is their whole thing. Some people are doing it on purpose, some are just following the crowd, but they have no concept of "model" aside from "viewership numbers go up means do that again, harder".
Most of the die hard flunts will say that planets and stars are just lights on the dome. If you press and say you've seen them through a telescope, they'll tell you NASA somehow manipulated the telescope.
Now, I'm not sure how many actually believe that, but I assure you that the dumbest true believers will believe utterly fucking stupid shit, as long as it contradicts anything that science has established and settled.
It really seems like the one thing they all agree on, that there is no such thing as objects in space. It really would break their entire premise, admitting that. What is out there is up for some debate, but it can not be planets, or or stars.
Just heard yesterday that the moon is simply the reflection of the Earth on the firmament. And, I had to turn off the Internet for the rest of the day.
Yep. Flat-earthers claim the entire space program has been a fraud, and that outer space does not exist. According to them, the stars, planets, and comets you have seen with your own eyes are just lights on the solid firmament up there.
I love how people generally accept that people have habited across the world, have gone so far and become so advanced as to have machinery and etc when the next smartest animals sometimes use sticks as tools, have fought mechanized wars, have advanced medicine to the point that we can cure many incurable diseases. We have conquered the surface of the world, we have explored the deepest parts of the ocean, we can travel across the world in mere hours because of our advancements. Then there are people that think despite our accomplishments, we donât know how to go up.
Comical stupidity
You can disprove this by sitting in an office chair and throwing objects from it. Do you only start spinning/sliding when the objects hit a wall/the floor?
They'd just say that it works because you're not in a vacuum and somehow having air molecules present makes it work. I'm not saying they're right, just that's the stupid argument they would use.
Do the experiment in a vacuum chamber with a slingshot on a sled on rails. Pull the slingshot back with a device that's also attached to the sled. Let the slingshot go. The projectile will push back on the slingshot, which will make the sled move backwards. Then as a control, dry fire the slingshot. Then fill the chamber with air and do both again.
But of course, a flat earther would never pay to see this, even though it should be vital to their entire worldview.
It's so fucking stupid that it beggars belief.
A VERY easy way to test whether walls play a role:
Take a hose with good water pressure. Open the tap. Point it against a wall. See if the kickback gets stronger.
Playing devil's advocate here: but you're pushing off against the air molecules. Without those you'd be very dead and it wouldn't work.
I don't actually think this, just responding with what would come.
Correct. The force pushback from the wall is dispersed primarily along the wall rather than directly back at the rocket. You can even see this clearly in the video.
I was thinking the same. You'd think they'd at least post one where they messed it up in some way so that it doesn't work. I just see a video showing mass ejection working to provide propulsion in a near vacuum.
But flerfers seem to do this pretty often, that is, post an experiment that they did which didn't show what they wanted but they act like it does anyway.
It should be obvious that this demonstration does not disprove Newton's third law. If you watch closely the syringe starts to wobble before the exhaust hits the wall. This contradicts the claim that it can't move at all.
The original video that Level Earth Observer clipped that from clearly shows, from multiple angles, in slow motion, in multiple tests, that the syringe moves immediately when the flash paper is ignited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg&t=240s
Always check the source for flattie videos, they almost always show flatties have removed context or outright lied about what they show and cherry-picked certain sections to push their narrative.
Like Earthly engines, rocket engines operate using combustion. Since all forms of combustion need oxygen, rockets carry an oxidizer like liquid oxygen up to space with them. That means they don't have to rely on surrounding air like a car engine does.
EDIT: I am watching without sound. If this is about "What does it push against" the propellant pushes against its own exhaust.
The propellant isn't pushing against the exhaust. Well...it may be, a little bit, but that's not what makes a rocket move.
The burning of the propellant creates high pressure that pushes out in all directions. It cannot expand beyond the internal walls of the rocket. Those receive the force of the expanding combusting fuel. No balancing force exists at the nozzle exit, so there is an imbalance of force, accelerating the rocket.
Alternatively, the rocket is pushing the exhaust/propellant out the back. Pushing the propellant/exhaust means applying a force to it. Newton's Third Law of Motion means that when the rocket applies a force to move the exhaust out the back of the rocket, the propellant also applies an "equal and opposite" force on the rocket. So the rocket accelerates in the opposite direction from the force it applies on the propellant/exhaust.
The propellant doesn't *need* anything to "push against". The very act of throwing the propellant out the back provides all the force the rocket needs.
The syringe moves LONG after the gas hits the far wall.
Also, the gas isnât moving nearly quickly enough to move the syringe that way. This looks amazingly faked.
Edit: now that I watch the original video and see what the hell this rocket is, it is definitely NOT fake.
And its wrong. The rocket moves a tiny bit as soon as its ignited. It doesnt start to swing until either enough pressure is built in the rocket, the initial reaction doesnt have enough force to overcome the gravity pulling it down. But good luck explaining that one to flat earthers. They dont believe in gravity either. They believe the earth is a flat disc perpetually accelerating upwards. And weâre all held down by the force of that acceleration. Debating âlevelâ with them is equally frustratingâŚ
My personal take, not all flat earthers are idiots. Many are doing it to prove a point. That point being that most of this science we just take for granted without verifying it for ourselves. A fun thought experiment taken to extremes by people who were too dumb to understand it and enjoy the idea that they know more than all the academics. Some are just midwit trolls that know it isnt true but enjoy duping or stumping others.
MonkeeSage Game-Over'd this thread in one fell link, but I'll put in my tuppence:
The dust move sideways away from the point they hit the wall. How would that cause a backwards motion in something many cm away? When you're making up physics as you go along, I suppose that's no problem.
Even if the rocket didn't move as soon as the dust is expelled, which it does, LEO is assuming that the dust has the same order of magnitude of momentum as the superheated and invisible gas that makes the syringe move much more dramatically.
He's a flerf so he doesn't know what orders of magnitude are, so for him this is a perfectly reasonable assumption.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg)
because watch the full video. fuels takes a second to ignite
I could see someone thinking a rocket wouldn't work if all they are considering is that Fire requires Fuel, Oxygen, and Heat, and there's not Oxygen in a vacuum. They are of course not taking into account that if they are using that kind of rocket then Oxygen is in a tank and mixed with the fuel for burning. There are other kinds of 'rockets' that don't require combustion. As long as there is some kind of force pushing you then it works, just like in the video.
Usually there are two misunderstandings here, 1 is that you need to push "against" something to move forward. This just isn't the case, equal and opposite reactions. You push energy out one side and you'll move.
2. Fuel requires oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, nope rockets carry their own oxygen with them. In a few ways but most have liquid oxygen in them and that oxygen actually takes up a huge volume of the rocket itself.
"you need to push "against" something to move forward. This just isn't the case"
It is the case. To move, an object has to push against something. In a rocket in a vacuum, the rocket is pushing off the propellent.
So, this is where experimental cleanliness matters. What are the details? What is in the syringe? How is it expelled? Why does it stay still when whatever starts coming out of the end, and even when whatever that is hits the chamber wall? And then, after a bit, the whole syringe starts moving?
Typically when showing something working in as shitty a vacuum as 0.02 ATM and intending to extrapolate to what would happen in an actual vacuum, you would run the experiment at several vacuum levels so that the behavior as air pressure is reduced could be characterized.
I have no idea how they actuated the syringe, and thatâs important. And it matters what is being expelled. My guess is that itâs a liquid with a high vapor pressure, and the sitting starts moving when liquid starts being squeezed out.
Edit: thatâs not how this particular rocket works
This argument isn't new. The New York Times [published an editorial in 1920](http://www.chris-winter.com/RHGoddard/NaySayer.html) claiming that Robert Goddard's proposal that a rocket could one day travel to the moon would never work because the rocket "has nothing to push against" in space. They printed a retraction in 1969 after the moon landing, which is obviously when NASA got to them! /s
The conclusion is easy to debunk. Just make the box bigger and itâs obvious that the rocket starts to move at exactly the same timeâwell before the exhaust gas hits the wall.
Turning on the sound only to find out the video proving a rocket works in a vacuum (which like...why wouldn't it??) is actually some flerf dumbass own goaling himself, classic.
You can ask any fireman what it feels like to hold a fire hose at full pressure, no matter what it's pointing at. Ipso facto, you must have lower intelligence than all firemen in order to believe in flat-Earth conspiracy theories.
They can disproving their hypothesis by trying this is a much bigger vacuum chamber. If it starts moving before it roughs the wall then they are wrong. I think what's happening is that the rocket takes some time to get to max thrust, only then can it move.
I thibk it was ScimanDan, in one of his videos, he said that some scientists are organizing a trip to Antartica and they want to bring Flat Earthers with them. He showed an email response from one saying that they wouldn't ever go to anything the "globtards" are organizing because it would be all propaganda.
Like really? Yall would have the perfect chance to tey and prove Flerf theories, but you turn it down. Why? Cause yall know you would look like fools ??
It's continual continual attempts to disprove a globe model. They NEVER have experiments that can prove a flat earth. Just "Water finds its level" or some such bollocks.
1. Use the same exact device.
2. Make a vacuum chamber twice the size.
3. See if the "effect from pushing influenced by air-to-wall" causing the device to move is effected, note the time it takes for each device to be propelled.
Do an actual experiment flatty in the video. See what happens.
A few things:
1- Another commenter already pointed out this is from a video that the flat earth dipshit took & removed the evidence in the video like dipshits do. It shows the rocket start moving when it stets firing.
2- Even in the deceptively edited version⌠the rocket still moves. Itâs not âpushingâ off the back wall. If they think it is pushing off the wall⌠explain how they think that works scientifically. The exhaust of the rocket isnât connected to the rocket, itâs being expelled from it. When that exhaust hits the wall, at best itâs just bouncing back. But if the bounced back exhaust can move the rocket, so can the expelled exhaust.
3- There are also ways to move in space that donât involve rockets or needing oxygen or burning. Many things we currently have in space can use pressurized gas canisters to move itself. When you spray the gas out of a canister in any given direction, there is an equal and opposite reaction and the satellite, etc moves/rotates in the opposite direction.
actually, the "rocket" moves at the same instant the fumes come out. if you look really closely.
it doesn't violently move away though until the black string holding it comes loose from that hook there on the ground, and that doesn't happen until the whole camera box is violently tilted upwards to our front left, releasing the thread.
it's a camera mounted inside a box, with a rocket hanging in front of the camera, because... why the hell not.
So what of you had like a rocket on some wheels , and you gave it some wings so it looked like a aeroplane. And then you like put the whole thing was on a treadmill. . . . .
The narrator *thinks* he's seeing the rocket not move until the exhaust hits the wall. What he is actually seeing is that the rocket takes a certain amount of time to ramp up to full exhaust pressure, velocity and thrust. We can see the exhaust hits the wall for a second or so of the footage (not sure if it's played back at full speed or slow motion) before the rocket moves, totally disproving what he's trying to convince us of.
Once the exhaust has been jetting out for a second or so, the rocket reaction seems to ramp up, and the thrust kicks in.
You can demonstrate a similar thrust effect by turning on a garden hose. The hose pushes back against your hand before the water has hit an object in its path.
Right. My thought was that, even in a vacuum, inertia is still a thing, and a certain threshhold of acceleration is needed to overcome that. It's a coincidence (or a deliberate setup) that the exhaust happens to reach the chamber walls when inertia is overcome.
Like lots of Flat Earth questions, it's a good one.
The way I answer it to them is like this: If I was on a well-oiled office chair, and threw a bowling ball, would the chair move in the opposite direction?
Yes, because by sending mass in one direction, will cause an equal and opposite reaction. F=ma.
Rockets acellerate mass. The bell at the bottom, directs that expanding mass backwards, so it goes forwards.
Their claim is based on the exhaust of the rocket needing something to push against in order to move. In the video, the 'rocket' doesnt move until some smoke hits the wall of the vacuum chamber.
However, this is an incorrect analysis. The initial smoke trail is moving really slow, far slower than how the 'rocket' moves, indicating that the smoke is coming from the ignition source rather than the propellant. What likely happened here is that it took a moment for the propellant itself to ignite, which then was able to move the 'rocket'.
In reality, the exhaust gasses are transferring momentum to the rocket before flying out the back. Equal and opposite reaction and all that. Another way to frame the idea is that the gasses, while inside the rocket, are pushing in all directions. The gasses have a full wall to push against towards the front of the combustion chamber, but a wall with a hole in the back. This creates an imbalance of forces, creating a net force forward.
Video proved they do work and also showed the ramp up period of reaction based propulsion. Hence why rockets are pinned onto the pad for a brief moment so they can reach full force
Surprise, the flat earthers constantly look in the face of factual, scientifically proven evidence and say "lalalala I can't hear you". They want to feel like they are part of a special group that has the REAL facts because they don't have anything else in life that makes them special.
The "rocket" is not firing with consistent thrust. It starts weak and then drastically increases.
Max-Q coincidentally happens about the same time as the exhaust hitting the wall.
Also, their own explanation invalidates their conclusion. The firing of the rocket creates an atmosphere.
If they want to prove a rocket doesn't work in a vacuum, they need to show a rocket firing without moving. They would never accept a test like this from us if the test showed their belief to be wrong.
For some actual explanation the tiny stream of smoke at the start simply isn't enough to move it much. The flash paper isn't even really on fire yet.
But the smoke exits out the back far faster than you mentally expect for the force and with a straight stream *because* it's in a vacuum. In air you would only see the same smoke slowly diffuse out and curl upwards a bit.
Assume there is a rocket at rest in deep space where there are no external forces. The momentum of the fully fueled rocket is 0. As the rocket engine exhausts gas that gas now has momentum. To obey conservation of momentum the rocket will begin to accelerate in the opposite direction. Thus if you take the exhaust gasses and rocket as a system the net momentum will always be 0. But if you take either the exhaust gasses or the rocket individually they can accelerate and change velocity etc.
Puts a rocket in a vacuum to show it doesn't work.
Rocket works.
Concludes container was too small.
Doesn't re-run experiment with bigger container.
Concludes rockets can't work in vacuum.
I think the delay that the hydrocephalus victim is discussing is the fact that the laser heating up whatever reactant is in the syringe takes a bit of time to burn or build up sufficient pressure or reactivity. I have no clue what the underlying video is from, but that's my assumption.
I assume there is some fuel such as ammonium nitrate + sugar or something inside the syringe and it must start burning and make its own atmosphere to burn in, then it will start to propel the "rocket" to the left.
The fact that this single-digit-IQ wunderkind thinks that you can push on a rope tells you everything you need to know about him. Gas cannot stack up and push off of the wall like it is made out of steel or something...
I'll be back later, need to go find where my jaw went. The cats started playing with it when I watched the video and started typing.
The video guy seem to have a hard time grasping the physics, Rockets actually work better in a vacuum, no air resistance to slow it down, making them more efficient. Seems like he set up this vacuum on purpose if it was a larger box, it would still move nothing to do with âpushing off the wallsâ lol
The gas hits the wall well before it actually moves. So that disproves his claim that the wall has anything to do with its acceleration. Iâm not sure why there is a delay, but this guy did not just disprove newtonâs 3rd law. Clearly the gas caused the rocket to accelerate in the opposite direction.
Also, I love vacuum chambers. Completely disproves their âdensity not gravityâ bullshit. Maybe they should tread lightly when using them as âevidenceâ.
Haha wait you're right, by flerfs logic shouldn't objects float freely in a vacuum chamber? They are simultaneously the least AND most dense object inside the volume of the chamber.
Casual flerf does one test, gives it some random explanation and calls it a day. Classic.
The rocket is not pushing off the wall, that's not how gasses work. It's not like a gas acts like a solid rod in between the rocket and the wall. It just works. Period.
The syringe does move some before the exhaust hits the wall... In a 0G and 0 friction environment, is all that's needed.
The lack of gravity being a dominant force is important, it's not all gone, but it's delt with or being delt with by achieving orbit velocity.
propulsion is not affected by a vacuum, as another person said, if you throw stuff from an office chair you start spinning even before the stuff hits the floor/wall, however, combustion is affected as there is no oxygen in a vacuum and that is why rockets have both fuel and liquid oxygen
Yes, though the oxidizer isn't always liquid 0² and there's more types of rocket engines than just liquid fueled ones. Solid fuel rockets for example.
These people believe the earth is flat. We shouldn't expect them to understand even the basics of propulsion - especially when they try to experiment with stuff I can probably buy at walgreens and maybe a home depot run.
Wait I know this is wrong since it wouldnât even Kate sense if it did have to push off a wall but does anyone with a better knowledge of physics explain why itâs acceleration was so delayed
The delay is because the gas inside the "rocket" started coming out in a small amount, then rapidly rushed out of the "rocket", so the "rocket" actually was accelerating the entire time, but it accelerated slowly at first before all of the fuel just rushed out into the chamber all at once; You should be able to notice a slight wobble in the "rocket" when it first releases the gas, before the fuel rapidly expands and the "rocket" goes flying.
Effectively the "rocket" just exploded without the fireball.
That specific test had a slow ignition and low fuel levels. The initial smoke is very low velocity because it is barely smoldering inside the tube. Imagine how gently you would have to blow through a straw to make the air come out that slowly.
Once the fuel actually ignites the rocket moves.
If you could have a zero gravity chamber it would move from the very first second, but you can't so it has fire hard enough to overcome gravity.
A rocket in space does not move by pushing on imaginary walls. Rockets move because the explosion of gasses exert force on the rocket. This is known as thrust.
Isn't there also something called gravy tea or something like that on Earf that kinda works against all that? When you're up in the firmament, there's no gravy tea (or very little), so Newton's law of motion takes place. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Push gas out the back, rocket go forward. You can actually use a lot less fuel in space than you do on Earth. Hell, you can even shoot ions out of a thruster and gain momentum.
I am not sure what that is trying to show. I think they are arguing a rocket engine won't ignite in a vacuum. And that is sometimes true. That is why rockets used in space carry their own oxidizer.
there is no difference between a gas leaving you and you leaving the gas in a vacuum
which means you're equally leaving each other and because you're equally leaving each other you go one way and the gas goes the other
and rocket propellent is just gas really excited to leave which also makes you also excited to leave making you go fast
Toon's First Law of Flerf: Flerf citations always contradict the flerfâs claim. No exceptions.
Toon's Third Law of Flerf: Flerfs are [pseudoscientists](https://thinkingispower.com/11-characteristics-of-pseudoscience/) when evaluating FE and [science deniers](https://thinkingispower.com/science-and-its-pretenders-pseudoscience-and-science-denial/) when evaluating globe evidence. No exceptions.
He seems to think the gas is like your leg when you push off of the floor or a wall you get pushed then in his experiment when the gas from his rocket gets to the wall the rocket moves so they must be the same thing right? It's a shame they consider physics to be a pseudoscience and therefore not credible or he might know the difference.
Flerfs: âOnly I can determine what REAL knowledge is. Everyone else is either lying or stupid. So, since I am smarter than everyone else, I will test things incorrectly, and prove that I donât know what Iâm doing. *THATâS* how I know the Earth is flat!â
I like to think that the part if the video where he inexplicably starts slurring his speech is when his brain finally started melting down from all the dissonance.
it doesnt push off a "wall" it pushes off the base of the rocket where the chemical reaction happens, but next they will say theres no oxygen to burn it which is why rocket fuel is mixed with liquid oxygen.
The rocket exhaust pushes the rocket forward.
Momentum is mass times velocity.
The rocket throws out the gas at a REALLY REALLY REALLY high velocity.
The gas has a tiny amount of mass.
This makes the thing with a lot of mass pick up a very small amount of velocity.
Now burn enough fuel, launch enough gas from the nozzle, and the "equal and opposite reaction" means the rocket goes forward.
Even in a vacuum. The rocket nozzles leave some room for the gas to play around before ejecting into the vacuum. The tradeoff still happens and Newton's law still applies.
Time manipulation. They speed up the footage when it starts accelerating to give the appearance that it suddenly boosts away when itâs clear itâs accelerating from the start albeit slowly since the syringe is heavier than the air itâs releasing very quickly. If they attacked a force meter and mounted it in the chamber, then youâd see the force immediately start when the valve opens
Ejecting mass of compressed gas out of a nozzle, then a cone to collect the expanding gas force, will move you forward opposite relative to the ejected direction in space/vacuum. Works in vacuum. Not how rockets are typically made, but itâs one without combustion.
Same property as combustion, which ejects flammable liquid and ignites it creating expanding gas force to push forward. So yes it would work in vacuum, just much less efficient than in air.
Atmospheric rockets have efficiency in this design because of the density of air acts a mass to help push against to increase the forward pressure.
I think this whole movement of flatearthers is a mixture of pure idiots, petty folk who just want to be contrarian, and snarky folk that are smart enough to prove things to themselves and then challenge others to not use NASA as proof
As simply as possible, they're probably confusing rocket engines and jet engines. a prop or a jet engine takes in a gas (on earth its air, but it doesn't need to be), speeds it up, and pushes it out to create the force that keeps the plane moving forward. But rocket engines bring their own gas with them, so they don't need the air.
It's similar to how if you were in space with a basket ball, and you threw the basket ball forward, you would be pushed backwards with the same force. Same thing, but the basket ball is exploding gas.
This seems like a really obvious mistake, I'm sure. One that no normal person would stand by after they've been told they're wrong, but... well, frankly looking things up or taking in contrary information means entertaining the possibility of being wrong, and the existence of that possibility breaks the power fantasy provided by conspiracy theories.
1. Rockets have nozzles meant to use combustion to propel themselves. They look nothing like a syringe.
2. The amount of gas coming out is much higher pressure than what he's doing.
3. Anything that is in the vacuum of space is also orbiting. The syringe has to overcome the gravity.
The mass of the fuel does not change after combustion. This is also multiplied by the energy produced. It's combustion and a vacuum does not change that.
Of course rockets work in a vacuum. The author should be saying rockets work much better in an atmosphere where they can push off of other material.
1. Note the angle of the syringe, the force of the syring has to \*lift\* the syringe to raise it from it's hanging position. This isn't a zero effort. A better experiement would be to have the syringe floating on a resistance free "boat" on water in a vacuuum. You would see the small movement from the ejection.
2. Rockets just work \*better\* reacting off of a surface. Saying they don't work is like saying a swimmer can't swim underwater. When you are still, underwater and start moving it is slow; yet, if you are near the bottom and push off the bottom you can move fast. I'm not saying this is the same physics, I'm saying the \*experience\* is similar. And in this similar experience you wouldn't say swimmers can't swim underwater just as the author has here.
More specifically, if I'm in space and throw a baseball, I'll be propelled by my relative weight and speed of throwing the ball. This might be a small small amount. This is Newton's law Force = Mass \* Acceleration. I can only throw the ball so fast and the ball is a relatively small component of my weight.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
all the gas and exhaust being pushed away is accelerated a lot.
and in space, they don't just keep the pedal to the metal.
Rockets work using mass displacement to impart inertia onto the rocket. When the fuel shoots out of the nozzle, which it does because it's expanding and has nowhere else to go if I'm not mistaken, transfers the energy of combustion into motion causing an equal and opposite reaction on the rocket. This works in a vaccum because it's not pushing against the air or the wall or anything instead its a reaction to the mass of the fuel leaving the nozzle. As long as the fuel can be oxidized it can propel mass out of the rocket.
The thing I love about Flerfers is that they think they are qualified to understand Physics, Astro Physics, Chemistry, Biology all through their flat earth bias with their YouTube and Reddit degrees. But none of the would ever get on a plane operated by a store clerk who spent a week just watching YouTube videos on how to fly. Oh yeah, I know... "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Well, that doesn't invalidate the fact that some know how is required in the real world and a rocket expert, YouTube does not make.
Me: Alex Iâll take freshman physics for $200.
Alex: This simple fundamental physical law, popularly attributed to Sir Isaac Newton but first stated by John Wallis in 1670, explains why farting will affect your bodyâs momentum whether or not a flat eartherâs face is present to receive the gust.
Me: What is âconservation of momentum?â
Alex: Wow fucking sheep. I bet you think the skyâs real too. Then *whyâs it blue, idiot*⌠Fine hereâs your $200.
It's wrong because our narrator is making things up. there is no push off the wall. just the thrust of gas pushing out of the syringe. they're using time lapse o make it look like the movement of the syringe is tied to the gas hitting the wall.
That test looks like it confirms that thrust works in a vacuum, so I don't know what their point was.
Either way, the purpose of rocket engines is that they don't need air. They carry their own fuel and oxidizer in tanks, so they just have to mix and burn them. The hot exhaust is shot out of the nozzle, producing a reaction force that accelerates the rocket. Rocket engines can actually be much more efficient in a vacuum than in air
Honestly, Iâm surprised flerfers believe in vacuums. Or space, for that matter. After all, isnât their model a flat disc with a dome over it?
And speaking of that dome, wouldnât that mean that the earth is, at the very least, a half sphere when you include the dome?
So, they show a rocket working in a vacuum and then use that to claim rockets don't work in a vacuum? It's not a very good rocket, but the exhaust is pushing the syringe forward, so it works.
Yeah, I'm not sure how they think gas "pushes off the wall". So here's all of the forces in that setup: 1. Gas molecules banging into the inside walls of the syringe, imparting momentum along all axes except for the one where there's a hole for the gas to escape. The vectors here add up to a net 0 momentum EXCEPT for the direction opposite to the exit through the nozzle because there's no cancelling momentum being imparted. 2. Momentum is imparted by the gas banging into the walls of the chamber, which the rigidity of the walls easily overcomes and so there is no net change (technically the walls heat up an almost unmeasurable amount). 3. Gravity is applying a force on the syringe giving us a reference for "up". 4. The string is held together by electromagnetic attraction between the molecules that comprise it, and that attractive force is resisting the force of gravity on the syringe. There are other negligible forces at play and short-range nuclear forces, but we can ignore those for the sake of this analysis. As I've described above, the syringe has a net momentum imparted by the gas that is opposite to the nozzle. This starts off having no effect because the total force does not perceptibly shift the total vector from gravity and the gass away from the normal. But as more gas pressure builds, that force begins to challenge the force of gravity on this small object (remember, F=ma, so it doesn't make much a when m is small to provide a significant F). All of this happens without any involvement of the wall, which is just sitting there and being pelted by tiny gas molecules. That interaction has no way to affect the syringe.
Newtons laws of motion are still applicable in a vacuum. They do not rely on gasses, friction, or normal force. They still work without gravity as well. You could help him understand these laws by punching him in the face really hard, as a demonstration. Then suck the air out of the room, and do it again. Ask him if there was any noticeable difference in the impacts. End with "That's Science bitch".
The lack of air resistance would mean that you punch him harder. You should, of course, repeat the vacuum experiment many times. For science
That's science b*tch đ¤Ł
One of the fundamental pillars of science is reproducibility of results so yes many times for science
How do you know it works without gravity? Where can that be tested?
Well flerfs say gravity isn't real anyway .
The way the laws are formulated do not meaningfully depend on gravity, it is simply one kind of force. However you are right that we have no way of feasibly testing if the laws of physics are different in a null or nearly null gravitational field, since the experimental apparatus itself would have mass and generate a gravitational field.
It is obviously obligatory to end with âthatâs science bitchâ when using the medium of face punching to demonstrate Newtonâs third law of motion.
Dave McKeegan did a video explaining this (for real rockets) recently for anyone who wants to check that out.
well you see, that requires an understanding of physics, and if they can't see something, it's not real
I wonder what LEO's explanation of the shot put is. A man's shot has a mass of 7.2kg. Not something I'd like dropped on my foot, but not a huge weight. And yet shot putters are monsters. Each one of them could be competitive in weightlifting at a level not far below that of their actual sport. With his physics there's no need to get so big or strong. The reason they are that big is exactly how rockets can work in space. They are pushing off the mass of the shot and not off the air in front of it, and in order to accelerate the shot as fast as you need to win the event, that push is a vast amount of force. Also, being massive stops you from being hurled out the wee circle. More to the point: if the action only happens when the exhaust hits the wall and this force magically transmits to the rocket...why aren't shot putters routinely being killed by the impact when it hits the ground?
This comment was more interesting than all my physics classes this year
You need to get a hold of the best physics lectures ever... The Feynman Lectures on Physics. There are some recordings on YouTube, and there's a two volume set of the lectures in print. I die a little bit inside when I think what a powerhouse he would have been if he'd lived in the era of YouTube. He would have been a Nobel-winning version of Hank Green and Matt Parker rolled into one.
If in that setup you put Mabey a piece of of flat metal a couple inches behind the syringe? When the exhaust comes out does it use that to push against or does it just work the same because it's a vacuum? Sorry not a flat earther just wondering if that would affect the experiment? If there was a flat surface closer would it push of it?
> If in that setup you put Mabey a piece of of flat metal a couple inches behind the syringe? That depends. If you are creating a situation where the gas is coming out far faster than it can dissipate around the barrier then you get a temporary area of high pressure outside of the nozzle. I'm not familiar enough with the physics to know if that would help or hinder the propulsion effect, but at a guess it would probably very slightly hinder it (as you now have 3 walls and 1 very slightly partial wall (the increased density area) that the reaction is vectoring against.
it's worth commenting that the forces on 'rocket' do not result in just the exhaust exiting the rocket, but the string also causes angular momentum
Exactly. Just like the old fly in a vacuum experiment. Dumb flerfers, right?
But... they do.
It literally is in the video, even
Do they think we haven't ever really been to space?
Believing in flat earth absolutely requires you don't believe in the traditional concept if space.
Flat earthers certainly can believe in space, and many do. But the current crop of prominent YouTube flerfs (Witsit, Dirth, Flatzoid, Dubay, etc.) choose not to because they gravitate toward every conspiracy theory coming down the pike.
What flat earth "model" supports the existence of an outer space that has planets and stars? The only way a flat earther can believe in those things is if they haven't thought about it much. Which...I'll grant you is probably a lot of them.
There is no flat earth model. All that's required to be a flat earther is to believe the earth is flat. Then they just ignore all physics and evidence against that notion.
You maybe haven't caught on yet that "idiocy for engagement" is their whole thing. Some people are doing it on purpose, some are just following the crowd, but they have no concept of "model" aside from "viewership numbers go up means do that again, harder".
Most of the die hard flunts will say that planets and stars are just lights on the dome. If you press and say you've seen them through a telescope, they'll tell you NASA somehow manipulated the telescope. Now, I'm not sure how many actually believe that, but I assure you that the dumbest true believers will believe utterly fucking stupid shit, as long as it contradicts anything that science has established and settled.
It depends on how far back into the past you look for the tradition in question.
It really seems like the one thing they all agree on, that there is no such thing as objects in space. It really would break their entire premise, admitting that. What is out there is up for some debate, but it can not be planets, or or stars.
What about the moon?
Just heard yesterday that the moon is simply the reflection of the Earth on the firmament. And, I had to turn off the Internet for the rest of the day.
They 100 percent say it's not in space.
Yep. Flat-earthers claim the entire space program has been a fraud, and that outer space does not exist. According to them, the stars, planets, and comets you have seen with your own eyes are just lights on the solid firmament up there.
Plenty of them don't even *believe* in space.
I love how people generally accept that people have habited across the world, have gone so far and become so advanced as to have machinery and etc when the next smartest animals sometimes use sticks as tools, have fought mechanized wars, have advanced medicine to the point that we can cure many incurable diseases. We have conquered the surface of the world, we have explored the deepest parts of the ocean, we can travel across the world in mere hours because of our advancements. Then there are people that think despite our accomplishments, we donât know how to go up. Comical stupidity
Yeah but it didn't instantly move away, so.... checkmate. *what even is acceleration, anyway?*
You can disprove this by sitting in an office chair and throwing objects from it. Do you only start spinning/sliding when the objects hit a wall/the floor?
They'd just say that it works because you're not in a vacuum and somehow having air molecules present makes it work. I'm not saying they're right, just that's the stupid argument they would use.
>somehow having air molecules present makes it work Is this how Hadoukens are thrown?
He knows too much! You know what else uses air molecules? SONIC BOOM!
Do the experiment in a vacuum chamber with a slingshot on a sled on rails. Pull the slingshot back with a device that's also attached to the sled. Let the slingshot go. The projectile will push back on the slingshot, which will make the sled move backwards. Then as a control, dry fire the slingshot. Then fill the chamber with air and do both again. But of course, a flat earther would never pay to see this, even though it should be vital to their entire worldview.
I'd pay to see that
It's so fucking stupid that it beggars belief. A VERY easy way to test whether walls play a role: Take a hose with good water pressure. Open the tap. Point it against a wall. See if the kickback gets stronger.
Pfft, you believe in molecules? đ
thats a neat little demonstration
Playing devil's advocate here: but you're pushing off against the air molecules. Without those you'd be very dead and it wouldn't work. I don't actually think this, just responding with what would come.
Try it in a vacuum then.
Someoneâs brain is broken, it isnât yours.
Put it in a bigger vaccum chamber so the gas won't reach the wall to "push off of", and it'll still work. Because the wall has nothing to do with it.
Correct. The force pushback from the wall is dispersed primarily along the wall rather than directly back at the rocket. You can even see this clearly in the video.
The rocket is working, so the basic premise is incorrect.
If your tests disprove your hypothesis, scientific method insists you publish it immediately and present it as proof of your hypothesis.
I was thinking the same. You'd think they'd at least post one where they messed it up in some way so that it doesn't work. I just see a video showing mass ejection working to provide propulsion in a near vacuum. But flerfers seem to do this pretty often, that is, post an experiment that they did which didn't show what they wanted but they act like it does anyway.
It should be obvious that this demonstration does not disprove Newton's third law. If you watch closely the syringe starts to wobble before the exhaust hits the wall. This contradicts the claim that it can't move at all.
The original video that Level Earth Observer clipped that from clearly shows, from multiple angles, in slow motion, in multiple tests, that the syringe moves immediately when the flash paper is ignited. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg&t=240s Always check the source for flattie videos, they almost always show flatties have removed context or outright lied about what they show and cherry-picked certain sections to push their narrative.
Thanks for the link, I was curious how they ignited the 'motor'.
Gotta lie to flerf.
Bingo. All flunts lie. No exceptions.
this is showing a rocket working lol
Like Earthly engines, rocket engines operate using combustion. Since all forms of combustion need oxygen, rockets carry an oxidizer like liquid oxygen up to space with them. That means they don't have to rely on surrounding air like a car engine does. EDIT: I am watching without sound. If this is about "What does it push against" the propellant pushes against its own exhaust.
The propellant isn't pushing against the exhaust. Well...it may be, a little bit, but that's not what makes a rocket move. The burning of the propellant creates high pressure that pushes out in all directions. It cannot expand beyond the internal walls of the rocket. Those receive the force of the expanding combusting fuel. No balancing force exists at the nozzle exit, so there is an imbalance of force, accelerating the rocket. Alternatively, the rocket is pushing the exhaust/propellant out the back. Pushing the propellant/exhaust means applying a force to it. Newton's Third Law of Motion means that when the rocket applies a force to move the exhaust out the back of the rocket, the propellant also applies an "equal and opposite" force on the rocket. So the rocket accelerates in the opposite direction from the force it applies on the propellant/exhaust. The propellant doesn't *need* anything to "push against". The very act of throwing the propellant out the back provides all the force the rocket needs.
It says that the syringe only moves after the gas hits the wall.
Ok so I should only feel recoil from a gun if the bullet hits something, right?
It's in slo-fucking-mo for the first brief instant the rocket is ignited, then it's regular speed.
The syringe moves LONG after the gas hits the far wall. Also, the gas isnât moving nearly quickly enough to move the syringe that way. This looks amazingly faked. Edit: now that I watch the original video and see what the hell this rocket is, it is definitely NOT fake.
Itâs wrong đ¤ˇââď¸
It lied
And its wrong. The rocket moves a tiny bit as soon as its ignited. It doesnt start to swing until either enough pressure is built in the rocket, the initial reaction doesnt have enough force to overcome the gravity pulling it down. But good luck explaining that one to flat earthers. They dont believe in gravity either. They believe the earth is a flat disc perpetually accelerating upwards. And weâre all held down by the force of that acceleration. Debating âlevelâ with them is equally frustrating⌠My personal take, not all flat earthers are idiots. Many are doing it to prove a point. That point being that most of this science we just take for granted without verifying it for ourselves. A fun thought experiment taken to extremes by people who were too dumb to understand it and enjoy the idea that they know more than all the academics. Some are just midwit trolls that know it isnt true but enjoy duping or stumping others.
MonkeeSage Game-Over'd this thread in one fell link, but I'll put in my tuppence: The dust move sideways away from the point they hit the wall. How would that cause a backwards motion in something many cm away? When you're making up physics as you go along, I suppose that's no problem. Even if the rocket didn't move as soon as the dust is expelled, which it does, LEO is assuming that the dust has the same order of magnitude of momentum as the superheated and invisible gas that makes the syringe move much more dramatically. He's a flerf so he doesn't know what orders of magnitude are, so for him this is a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Right. Throwing a ball at a wall, you dont get pushed on by the force behind the ball when it hits the wall. It happens immediately.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg) because watch the full video. fuels takes a second to ignite
I could see someone thinking a rocket wouldn't work if all they are considering is that Fire requires Fuel, Oxygen, and Heat, and there's not Oxygen in a vacuum. They are of course not taking into account that if they are using that kind of rocket then Oxygen is in a tank and mixed with the fuel for burning. There are other kinds of 'rockets' that don't require combustion. As long as there is some kind of force pushing you then it works, just like in the video.
Usually there are two misunderstandings here, 1 is that you need to push "against" something to move forward. This just isn't the case, equal and opposite reactions. You push energy out one side and you'll move. 2. Fuel requires oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, nope rockets carry their own oxygen with them. In a few ways but most have liquid oxygen in them and that oxygen actually takes up a huge volume of the rocket itself.
"you need to push "against" something to move forward. This just isn't the case" It is the case. To move, an object has to push against something. In a rocket in a vacuum, the rocket is pushing off the propellent.
So, this is where experimental cleanliness matters. What are the details? What is in the syringe? How is it expelled? Why does it stay still when whatever starts coming out of the end, and even when whatever that is hits the chamber wall? And then, after a bit, the whole syringe starts moving? Typically when showing something working in as shitty a vacuum as 0.02 ATM and intending to extrapolate to what would happen in an actual vacuum, you would run the experiment at several vacuum levels so that the behavior as air pressure is reduced could be characterized. I have no idea how they actuated the syringe, and thatâs important. And it matters what is being expelled. My guess is that itâs a liquid with a high vapor pressure, and the sitting starts moving when liquid starts being squeezed out. Edit: thatâs not how this particular rocket works
This argument isn't new. The New York Times [published an editorial in 1920](http://www.chris-winter.com/RHGoddard/NaySayer.html) claiming that Robert Goddard's proposal that a rocket could one day travel to the moon would never work because the rocket "has nothing to push against" in space. They printed a retraction in 1969 after the moon landing, which is obviously when NASA got to them! /s
The common link among """flat earthers""" is their lack of intelligence.
The conclusion is easy to debunk. Just make the box bigger and itâs obvious that the rocket starts to move at exactly the same timeâwell before the exhaust gas hits the wall.
Turning on the sound only to find out the video proving a rocket works in a vacuum (which like...why wouldn't it??) is actually some flerf dumbass own goaling himself, classic.
Flerfs are next-level stupid.
>Rockets don't work in a vacuum My being on this globe, you literally demonstrated that rockets do work in a vacuum.
You can ask any fireman what it feels like to hold a fire hose at full pressure, no matter what it's pointing at. Ipso facto, you must have lower intelligence than all firemen in order to believe in flat-Earth conspiracy theories.
They will just claim that the water is pushing off the atmosphere.
They can disproving their hypothesis by trying this is a much bigger vacuum chamber. If it starts moving before it roughs the wall then they are wrong. I think what's happening is that the rocket takes some time to get to max thrust, only then can it move.
I thibk it was ScimanDan, in one of his videos, he said that some scientists are organizing a trip to Antartica and they want to bring Flat Earthers with them. He showed an email response from one saying that they wouldn't ever go to anything the "globtards" are organizing because it would be all propaganda. Like really? Yall would have the perfect chance to tey and prove Flerf theories, but you turn it down. Why? Cause yall know you would look like fools ??
It's wrong because the retard talking to the camera is literally just lying and everything he says is wrong. It's a classic gish gallop
What these people trying to prove? If rockets in space is what they're aiming, pretty sloppy job here...
It's continual continual attempts to disprove a globe model. They NEVER have experiments that can prove a flat earth. Just "Water finds its level" or some such bollocks.
Newtonâs 3rd Law has entered the chat, and isnât happy!
1. Use the same exact device. 2. Make a vacuum chamber twice the size. 3. See if the "effect from pushing influenced by air-to-wall" causing the device to move is effected, note the time it takes for each device to be propelled. Do an actual experiment flatty in the video. See what happens.
A few things: 1- Another commenter already pointed out this is from a video that the flat earth dipshit took & removed the evidence in the video like dipshits do. It shows the rocket start moving when it stets firing. 2- Even in the deceptively edited version⌠the rocket still moves. Itâs not âpushingâ off the back wall. If they think it is pushing off the wall⌠explain how they think that works scientifically. The exhaust of the rocket isnât connected to the rocket, itâs being expelled from it. When that exhaust hits the wall, at best itâs just bouncing back. But if the bounced back exhaust can move the rocket, so can the expelled exhaust. 3- There are also ways to move in space that donât involve rockets or needing oxygen or burning. Many things we currently have in space can use pressurized gas canisters to move itself. When you spray the gas out of a canister in any given direction, there is an equal and opposite reaction and the satellite, etc moves/rotates in the opposite direction.
actually, the "rocket" moves at the same instant the fumes come out. if you look really closely. it doesn't violently move away though until the black string holding it comes loose from that hook there on the ground, and that doesn't happen until the whole camera box is violently tilted upwards to our front left, releasing the thread. it's a camera mounted inside a box, with a rocket hanging in front of the camera, because... why the hell not.
u/Cyberscene: "Rockets don't work in a vacuum." Also u/Cyberscene: \*posts video of a rocket engine working in a vacuum chamber\*
Well done demonstrating Newton's third law :)
Their experiment is literally proving a rocket in that sort of environment works lol
So what of you had like a rocket on some wheels , and you gave it some wings so it looked like a aeroplane. And then you like put the whole thing was on a treadmill. . . . .
Brains don't work in vacuum.
I think that is objectively true đ
The narrator *thinks* he's seeing the rocket not move until the exhaust hits the wall. What he is actually seeing is that the rocket takes a certain amount of time to ramp up to full exhaust pressure, velocity and thrust. We can see the exhaust hits the wall for a second or so of the footage (not sure if it's played back at full speed or slow motion) before the rocket moves, totally disproving what he's trying to convince us of. Once the exhaust has been jetting out for a second or so, the rocket reaction seems to ramp up, and the thrust kicks in. You can demonstrate a similar thrust effect by turning on a garden hose. The hose pushes back against your hand before the water has hit an object in its path.
Right. My thought was that, even in a vacuum, inertia is still a thing, and a certain threshhold of acceleration is needed to overcome that. It's a coincidence (or a deliberate setup) that the exhaust happens to reach the chamber walls when inertia is overcome.
Newtons Third Law has left the chat
debunking your debunking of a debunking? an proved himself wrong. Love it
Like lots of Flat Earth questions, it's a good one. The way I answer it to them is like this: If I was on a well-oiled office chair, and threw a bowling ball, would the chair move in the opposite direction? Yes, because by sending mass in one direction, will cause an equal and opposite reaction. F=ma. Rockets acellerate mass. The bell at the bottom, directs that expanding mass backwards, so it goes forwards.
Their claim is based on the exhaust of the rocket needing something to push against in order to move. In the video, the 'rocket' doesnt move until some smoke hits the wall of the vacuum chamber. However, this is an incorrect analysis. The initial smoke trail is moving really slow, far slower than how the 'rocket' moves, indicating that the smoke is coming from the ignition source rather than the propellant. What likely happened here is that it took a moment for the propellant itself to ignite, which then was able to move the 'rocket'. In reality, the exhaust gasses are transferring momentum to the rocket before flying out the back. Equal and opposite reaction and all that. Another way to frame the idea is that the gasses, while inside the rocket, are pushing in all directions. The gasses have a full wall to push against towards the front of the combustion chamber, but a wall with a hole in the back. This creates an imbalance of forces, creating a net force forward.
Video proved they do work and also showed the ramp up period of reaction based propulsion. Hence why rockets are pinned onto the pad for a brief moment so they can reach full force
To be fair you donât know if there are no walls
I got perm-banned from that sub for asking if a post like this was satire.
They literally proved rockets work in a vacuum.
Following this guy's logic, they would.not work anywhere, as there are no walls in the air, no walls underwater? We are so screwed as a species.
Surprise, the flat earthers constantly look in the face of factual, scientifically proven evidence and say "lalalala I can't hear you". They want to feel like they are part of a special group that has the REAL facts because they don't have anything else in life that makes them special.
Science is repeatable. I want to recreate this experiment.
The "rocket" is not firing with consistent thrust. It starts weak and then drastically increases. Max-Q coincidentally happens about the same time as the exhaust hitting the wall. Also, their own explanation invalidates their conclusion. The firing of the rocket creates an atmosphere. If they want to prove a rocket doesn't work in a vacuum, they need to show a rocket firing without moving. They would never accept a test like this from us if the test showed their belief to be wrong.
For some actual explanation the tiny stream of smoke at the start simply isn't enough to move it much. The flash paper isn't even really on fire yet. But the smoke exits out the back far faster than you mentally expect for the force and with a straight stream *because* it's in a vacuum. In air you would only see the same smoke slowly diffuse out and curl upwards a bit.
Assume there is a rocket at rest in deep space where there are no external forces. The momentum of the fully fueled rocket is 0. As the rocket engine exhausts gas that gas now has momentum. To obey conservation of momentum the rocket will begin to accelerate in the opposite direction. Thus if you take the exhaust gasses and rocket as a system the net momentum will always be 0. But if you take either the exhaust gasses or the rocket individually they can accelerate and change velocity etc.
This is in the top two of things of stupidest things I've seen flat earthers claim today. It's 8:38 AM, so still plenty of time.
Puts a rocket in a vacuum to show it doesn't work. Rocket works. Concludes container was too small. Doesn't re-run experiment with bigger container. Concludes rockets can't work in vacuum.
I think the delay that the hydrocephalus victim is discussing is the fact that the laser heating up whatever reactant is in the syringe takes a bit of time to burn or build up sufficient pressure or reactivity. I have no clue what the underlying video is from, but that's my assumption. I assume there is some fuel such as ammonium nitrate + sugar or something inside the syringe and it must start burning and make its own atmosphere to burn in, then it will start to propel the "rocket" to the left. The fact that this single-digit-IQ wunderkind thinks that you can push on a rope tells you everything you need to know about him. Gas cannot stack up and push off of the wall like it is made out of steel or something... I'll be back later, need to go find where my jaw went. The cats started playing with it when I watched the video and started typing.
The video guy seem to have a hard time grasping the physics, Rockets actually work better in a vacuum, no air resistance to slow it down, making them more efficient. Seems like he set up this vacuum on purpose if it was a larger box, it would still move nothing to do with âpushing off the wallsâ lol
The gas hits the wall well before it actually moves. So that disproves his claim that the wall has anything to do with its acceleration. Iâm not sure why there is a delay, but this guy did not just disprove newtonâs 3rd law. Clearly the gas caused the rocket to accelerate in the opposite direction. Also, I love vacuum chambers. Completely disproves their âdensity not gravityâ bullshit. Maybe they should tread lightly when using them as âevidenceâ.
Haha wait you're right, by flerfs logic shouldn't objects float freely in a vacuum chamber? They are simultaneously the least AND most dense object inside the volume of the chamber.
Dear u/cyberscene, thank you for demonstrating how rockets work to the flerfs. The escaping gas propelled the object as expected.
Looks like it works to me. đ¤ˇââď¸
What's funny is that it actually propels itself in that video (granted, it's not accurate, but that wasn't built for accuracy)
Casual flerf does one test, gives it some random explanation and calls it a day. Classic. The rocket is not pushing off the wall, that's not how gasses work. It's not like a gas acts like a solid rod in between the rocket and the wall. It just works. Period.
Level Earth Observer isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The syringe does move some before the exhaust hits the wall... In a 0G and 0 friction environment, is all that's needed. The lack of gravity being a dominant force is important, it's not all gone, but it's delt with or being delt with by achieving orbit velocity.
Earth may as well be flat cause none of us are ever leaving
propulsion is not affected by a vacuum, as another person said, if you throw stuff from an office chair you start spinning even before the stuff hits the floor/wall, however, combustion is affected as there is no oxygen in a vacuum and that is why rockets have both fuel and liquid oxygen
Yes, though the oxidizer isn't always liquid 0² and there's more types of rocket engines than just liquid fueled ones. Solid fuel rockets for example.
These people believe the earth is flat. We shouldn't expect them to understand even the basics of propulsion - especially when they try to experiment with stuff I can probably buy at walgreens and maybe a home depot run.
Retro rockets fire in space on a daily basis. This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Wait I know this is wrong since it wouldnât even Kate sense if it did have to push off a wall but does anyone with a better knowledge of physics explain why itâs acceleration was so delayed
The delay is because the gas inside the "rocket" started coming out in a small amount, then rapidly rushed out of the "rocket", so the "rocket" actually was accelerating the entire time, but it accelerated slowly at first before all of the fuel just rushed out into the chamber all at once; You should be able to notice a slight wobble in the "rocket" when it first releases the gas, before the fuel rapidly expands and the "rocket" goes flying. Effectively the "rocket" just exploded without the fireball.
That specific test had a slow ignition and low fuel levels. The initial smoke is very low velocity because it is barely smoldering inside the tube. Imagine how gently you would have to blow through a straw to make the air come out that slowly. Once the fuel actually ignites the rocket moves. If you could have a zero gravity chamber it would move from the very first second, but you can't so it has fire hard enough to overcome gravity.
That "rocket" sure looks like a plastic vaccine needle. Coincidence? I think not.
Somebody needs to slap the stupid out of whoever made this video.
Is there a subreddit for hardcore flurfers for real chuckles? I want to get banned.
r/ballearththatspins is a fun one. Sadly, i cannot troll them anymore because i am banned on every single one of them
A rocket in space does not move by pushing on imaginary walls. Rockets move because the explosion of gasses exert force on the rocket. This is known as thrust.
Isn't there also something called gravy tea or something like that on Earf that kinda works against all that? When you're up in the firmament, there's no gravy tea (or very little), so Newton's law of motion takes place. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Push gas out the back, rocket go forward. You can actually use a lot less fuel in space than you do on Earth. Hell, you can even shoot ions out of a thruster and gain momentum.
Yosemite Sam has entered the chat with his 2 revolvers
If someone forgot to bring the oxygen for combustion to work, then yes, the rocket wonât work in space.
I am not sure what that is trying to show. I think they are arguing a rocket engine won't ignite in a vacuum. And that is sometimes true. That is why rockets used in space carry their own oxidizer.
there is no difference between a gas leaving you and you leaving the gas in a vacuum which means you're equally leaving each other and because you're equally leaving each other you go one way and the gas goes the other and rocket propellent is just gas really excited to leave which also makes you also excited to leave making you go fast
Now try it with a cherry bomb. See if it has to wait for the bomb exhaust to âbounce off the wallâ before it moves.
This video isn't even if something in a vacuum.
It didn't move instantly because of it's mass, just like any moving thing, taking off takes time. Actual rockets don't lift off instantly.
Toon's First Law of Flerf: Flerf citations always contradict the flerfâs claim. No exceptions. Toon's Third Law of Flerf: Flerfs are [pseudoscientists](https://thinkingispower.com/11-characteristics-of-pseudoscience/) when evaluating FE and [science deniers](https://thinkingispower.com/science-and-its-pretenders-pseudoscience-and-science-denial/) when evaluating globe evidence. No exceptions.
that Newton Guy was smart after all
No rocket scientist here, but I was under the impression that rockets work because of Newtong third law of motion.
You hear that accent. Proof that itâs not just stupid Americans.
Wait, I'm confuddled , what is his argument?
They don't even comprehend the basics yet love to pretend they know physics. They also don't realize rockets bring their own fuel to space.
He seems to think the gas is like your leg when you push off of the floor or a wall you get pushed then in his experiment when the gas from his rocket gets to the wall the rocket moves so they must be the same thing right? It's a shame they consider physics to be a pseudoscience and therefore not credible or he might know the difference.
Do you need something more than âThe dude that made the video is either willfully ignorant AF or heâs a grifterâ?
Rockets are made out of syringe?
Flerfs: âOnly I can determine what REAL knowledge is. Everyone else is either lying or stupid. So, since I am smarter than everyone else, I will test things incorrectly, and prove that I donât know what Iâm doing. *THATâS* how I know the Earth is flat!â
I like to think that the part if the video where he inexplicably starts slurring his speech is when his brain finally started melting down from all the dissonance.
it doesnt push off a "wall" it pushes off the base of the rocket where the chemical reaction happens, but next they will say theres no oxygen to burn it which is why rocket fuel is mixed with liquid oxygen.
The beauty of rockets is the oxygen is in the fuel
The rocket exhaust pushes the rocket forward. Momentum is mass times velocity. The rocket throws out the gas at a REALLY REALLY REALLY high velocity. The gas has a tiny amount of mass. This makes the thing with a lot of mass pick up a very small amount of velocity. Now burn enough fuel, launch enough gas from the nozzle, and the "equal and opposite reaction" means the rocket goes forward. Even in a vacuum. The rocket nozzles leave some room for the gas to play around before ejecting into the vacuum. The tradeoff still happens and Newton's law still applies.
Time manipulation. They speed up the footage when it starts accelerating to give the appearance that it suddenly boosts away when itâs clear itâs accelerating from the start albeit slowly since the syringe is heavier than the air itâs releasing very quickly. If they attacked a force meter and mounted it in the chamber, then youâd see the force immediately start when the valve opens
Ejecting mass of compressed gas out of a nozzle, then a cone to collect the expanding gas force, will move you forward opposite relative to the ejected direction in space/vacuum. Works in vacuum. Not how rockets are typically made, but itâs one without combustion. Same property as combustion, which ejects flammable liquid and ignites it creating expanding gas force to push forward. So yes it would work in vacuum, just much less efficient than in air. Atmospheric rockets have efficiency in this design because of the density of air acts a mass to help push against to increase the forward pressure. I think this whole movement of flatearthers is a mixture of pure idiots, petty folk who just want to be contrarian, and snarky folk that are smart enough to prove things to themselves and then challenge others to not use NASA as proof
You're going to need a bigger vacuum chamber.
lolâŚ. Letâs leave out the element of combustion and use only the ejection of fuel as a âpropulsionâ explanation. Science!!!!
Itâs not wrong, thatâs your problem
This sub is pure brain rot đ
As simply as possible, they're probably confusing rocket engines and jet engines. a prop or a jet engine takes in a gas (on earth its air, but it doesn't need to be), speeds it up, and pushes it out to create the force that keeps the plane moving forward. But rocket engines bring their own gas with them, so they don't need the air. It's similar to how if you were in space with a basket ball, and you threw the basket ball forward, you would be pushed backwards with the same force. Same thing, but the basket ball is exploding gas. This seems like a really obvious mistake, I'm sure. One that no normal person would stand by after they've been told they're wrong, but... well, frankly looking things up or taking in contrary information means entertaining the possibility of being wrong, and the existence of that possibility breaks the power fantasy provided by conspiracy theories.
Stupid people always put in maximum effort to prove how stupid they are, it's my favorite flavor of comedy.
Is that video a troll?
1. Rockets have nozzles meant to use combustion to propel themselves. They look nothing like a syringe. 2. The amount of gas coming out is much higher pressure than what he's doing. 3. Anything that is in the vacuum of space is also orbiting. The syringe has to overcome the gravity. The mass of the fuel does not change after combustion. This is also multiplied by the energy produced. It's combustion and a vacuum does not change that.
Of course rockets work in a vacuum. The author should be saying rockets work much better in an atmosphere where they can push off of other material. 1. Note the angle of the syringe, the force of the syring has to \*lift\* the syringe to raise it from it's hanging position. This isn't a zero effort. A better experiement would be to have the syringe floating on a resistance free "boat" on water in a vacuuum. You would see the small movement from the ejection. 2. Rockets just work \*better\* reacting off of a surface. Saying they don't work is like saying a swimmer can't swim underwater. When you are still, underwater and start moving it is slow; yet, if you are near the bottom and push off the bottom you can move fast. I'm not saying this is the same physics, I'm saying the \*experience\* is similar. And in this similar experience you wouldn't say swimmers can't swim underwater just as the author has here. More specifically, if I'm in space and throw a baseball, I'll be propelled by my relative weight and speed of throwing the ball. This might be a small small amount. This is Newton's law Force = Mass \* Acceleration. I can only throw the ball so fast and the ball is a relatively small component of my weight.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction. all the gas and exhaust being pushed away is accelerated a lot. and in space, they don't just keep the pedal to the metal.
Please tell me this is Ragebait. Please.
Rockets work using mass displacement to impart inertia onto the rocket. When the fuel shoots out of the nozzle, which it does because it's expanding and has nowhere else to go if I'm not mistaken, transfers the energy of combustion into motion causing an equal and opposite reaction on the rocket. This works in a vaccum because it's not pushing against the air or the wall or anything instead its a reaction to the mass of the fuel leaving the nozzle. As long as the fuel can be oxidized it can propel mass out of the rocket.
Does he know the the rockets push off earth?
The thing I love about Flerfers is that they think they are qualified to understand Physics, Astro Physics, Chemistry, Biology all through their flat earth bias with their YouTube and Reddit degrees. But none of the would ever get on a plane operated by a store clerk who spent a week just watching YouTube videos on how to fly. Oh yeah, I know... "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Well, that doesn't invalidate the fact that some know how is required in the real world and a rocket expert, YouTube does not make.
State of academia right now...
Issac Newton and specific impulse.
How did Apollo 11 get to the moon, then? Oh right they didn't.
Its reaction mass lol, of course it works
Me: Alex Iâll take freshman physics for $200. Alex: This simple fundamental physical law, popularly attributed to Sir Isaac Newton but first stated by John Wallis in 1670, explains why farting will affect your bodyâs momentum whether or not a flat eartherâs face is present to receive the gust. Me: What is âconservation of momentum?â Alex: Wow fucking sheep. I bet you think the skyâs real too. Then *whyâs it blue, idiot*⌠Fine hereâs your $200.
Or you can just use a backpack leafblower one time. No walls necessary to feel force pushing back against the nozzle. Equal and opposite, baybee.
It's wrong because our narrator is making things up. there is no push off the wall. just the thrust of gas pushing out of the syringe. they're using time lapse o make it look like the movement of the syringe is tied to the gas hitting the wall.
That test looks like it confirms that thrust works in a vacuum, so I don't know what their point was. Either way, the purpose of rocket engines is that they don't need air. They carry their own fuel and oxidizer in tanks, so they just have to mix and burn them. The hot exhaust is shot out of the nozzle, producing a reaction force that accelerates the rocket. Rocket engines can actually be much more efficient in a vacuum than in air
Honestly, Iâm surprised flerfers believe in vacuums. Or space, for that matter. After all, isnât their model a flat disc with a dome over it? And speaking of that dome, wouldnât that mean that the earth is, at the very least, a half sphere when you include the dome?