Dear devil's advocate (great movie by the way),hoi.polloi wrote:What about the idea that a chemical reaction can cause the gas to ignite without fire? (To avoid the complex description of what exactly fire is, I preempt your answer and hasten to add I recognize that it is a chemical reaction as well.)
To play devil's advocate, and because the official story now sounds so incredibly weak — laughable — wouldn't a pure chemical reaction, that isn't fire, still cause the requisite ignition and therefore expansion against the body of the ship? The gas wouldn't escape instantaneously, as you have sometimes left open as a possibility in your descriptions. Therefore, a nozzle is still useful in space, regardless of whether the gas is ejected or not. You can turn it on higher or lower. Ergo, although it may not be useful for pushing on a vehicle, it could still be used to combine chemicals in outer space, "under" the rocket, creating ignition and therefore enough blasts to move the rocket through space. Yes?
Wow, it's sounding pretty ridiculous to have space travel by any conventional means they claim to use.
First we must get clear what is the root driving mechanism for rockets? Propulsion, thrust, etc., right? I am not an engineer, but the concept is so well explained by simons funicular that does not move with the water thruster as the pressure/density difference between water and air is simply too big to power this heavy vehicle.
Then change the pressures of this experiment to the near vacuum of space. There simply is nothing to work against, to propel, to advance. Even if the thrust of the engine (in terms of the velocity of outflow) would be very high, still the pressure and temperature "conditions" (there's hardly neither of them) in space are so extreme that time and velocity is not enough to break basic physical and chemical laws.
If the propulsion hypothesis of movement is incorrect, then which mechanism is proposed that drives space rockets?
- all physical laws get 'crazy' when near zero pressure and temperature are approached
- how can anyone claim that "it works, because we see it happening in Earth's atmosphere so it must work in space the same way as well"?
- it should be different. The propulsion of rockets in atmosphere conditions must be entirely different than anything in non-atmospheric (space, (near) vacuum, > -200 deg Celsius Temperatures, radiation, etc.) conditions, in order to work
Consider:
- Mass = m - kg - presumed constant
- (Specific) weight = rho * g = N/m3 - depends on gravity & density
- Volume = V - m3 - relates to Pressure & Temperature; at (near) zero of both V gets enormous
- Temperature = result of Heat Flow and chemical state
- Pressure = F/A - N/m2 - near zero in Space
- Density (rho) = m/V - kg/m3 - depends on volume so on T & P
- Specific (tensile) strength = strength / rho - depends on density thus V thus T & P
- Heat capacity = E/T - J/K - highly depends on Temperature
- Coefficient of thermal expansion = 1/V * (dV/dT) - depends on Volume and Temperature
- Thermal conductivity = Power/Volume and Temperature - W/m*K - depends on mass, length, energy state, time and temperature - Watt = J/s
P*V = n*R*T
Here on Earth, all physical material testing laws have either gravity (~9.81 m/s2) or density (depending on PVT conditions) in them.
What about publishing enormously advanced tests of all those rockets "up there"? A unique P, T, V, gravity, density and radiation testing environment. Wouldn't we expect thousands and thousands of publications about (material) behaviour under such bizarre conditions?
Don't they come with the nice yet starless photo collection as presented to us by NASA?
[idea for other topic]How comets produce their alleged tail, is another topic to dive into. Without explaining that my thesis here I am not considering valid (enough).[/idea]
Interesting video:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXxPnmyDbk
Do not imagine that mathematics is hard and crabbed, and repulsive to common sense. It is merely the etherealization of common sense
Lord Kelvin (1910)