Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[Discumbobulate]

Kalliste , imagination does not provide a method for a rocket engine to provide thrust in a vacuum. We know from scientific controlled experiment that a rocket engine cannot do work in a vacuum.

The video of rocketry you posted earlier was interesting in that this is an early example of a mixture of science and pseudo science used to programme the masses.

In the video the method of achieving travel to the moon used by Jules Verne was the only known way of getting from earth to the moon , because science was aware of ramifications of Joules experiment. Could only be achieved via an enormous artillery shell since rockets were known not to work in a vacuum.

The description of the three stage rocketry was as I remember from the sixties. But since becoming aware of Joules experiment it is apparent that achieving the 18,000mph in the upper atmosphere for satellite deployment is nonsense too . Nothing can fall around the earth according to the theory of gravity as an attraction of mass across distance by unknown means.

You may of course provide a constant force of acceleration to enable a satellite to orbit around the planet , but without this force any satellite will spiral down towards the centre of earths gravity .

Was nice to see a mention of the N-body problem associated with orbiting bodies , sun moon and earth. A problem which is unsolvable within the heliocentric system.

[kalliste]

Kalliste , imagination does not provide a method for a rocket engine to provide thrust in a vacuum. We know from scientific controlled experiment that a rocket engine cannot do work in a vacuum.

We haven't seen that as far as I can tell. Check the video I posted from Project Orion, where a capsule is being propelled by high explosive shock waves. My mechanism for rockets to work in space doesn't involve Joule Expansion.

In another sense it doesn't matter. We can observe that NASA is lying about a bunch of things, we have no good way of definitively determining what is true and what is disinformation or misdirection.

The more interesting avenue of investigation is what can we figure out of what they are hiding from us? I suspect the answer to that is, "not much." Though an hour or two in a room with Tim Peake shackled to a chair and some secateurs and I'd find out something for sure.

[glg]

(...)

We can observe that NASA is lying about a bunch of things, we have no good way of definitively determining what is true and what is disinformation or misdirection.
(...)

kalliste, can you name anything practical, no matter how minute, that you think has originated and been devised solely by way of space travel?
Can you name anything practical, that you think would not be possible without access to space travel?

If you can answer in the affirmative and conclusively, I will start pondering if NASA is actually hiding things and question what about them is true or not, but if you find nothing, I will be content not bothering so as if they simply hide everything (which would be of no consequence to me) or otherwise, not bothering because I know they are full of rubbish.

[patrix]

I posted this on Facebook the other day:

Good morning. I will record myself dancing naked in the street and post here if anyone can provide me any ACTUAL scientific confirmation (a relevant repeatable observation or controlled experiment) that viru5es exist, that rockets can create thrust in an unrestricted vacuum such as space, or that the Earth orbits the Sun. Oh, and I find plenty confirmation that Earth is a rotating sphere btw. No problems there. :-)
*****

And again, no offense but I think I speak for most cluesforumers: No one here is interested in your unconfirmable beliefs regarding rockets. Read the thread will you, and if you have something that hasn't been examined already go ahead and post, if not please don't. And if you're right you will have the dubious pleasure of being able to watch me running naked down the street.

[simonshack]

*
Dear all,

I find it quite fascinating that this particular Cluesforum thread ("Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?" - started by our member Boethius back in 2013, i.e. a DECADE ago!) has now over a million views - yet, and so far, not ONE single substantiated argument has been put forth in support of the physical possibility of rockets being able to propel themselves beyond the Earth's atmosphere.

That's right: we are now in 2023 - and ten years of discussions have not yielded a shred of evidence to back up NASA's 65-year-old (yet ongoing) space travel narrative.

I will therefore solemnly declare (for now - and until any contradictory proof is submitted) the case closed: NO rockets can exit the Earth's atmosphere.

As for Robert Goddard, considered to be the "father of space rocketry" (although his toy rockets only reached a few miles of altitude), here's what we may read on the Wikipedia:

In 1924, Goddard published an article, "How my speed rocket can propel itself in vacuum", in Popular Science, in which he explained the physics and gave details of the vacuum experiments he had performed to prove the theory. But, no matter how he tried to explain his results, he was not understood by the majority. After one of Goddard's experiments in 1929, a local Worcester newspaper carried the mocking headline "Moon rocket misses target by 238,7991⁄2 miles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

"He was not understood by the majority"... Well, this may well be a case where the majority was quite right !

Space travel is a silly joke, folks - get over it. Now.

**************************************************************************************************************

For some more hilarious reading about Robert Goddard's ambitious projects, go to this NASA website article (see short extract of the same below).

"Toward the end of his 1920 report, Goddard outlined the possibility of a rocket reaching the moon and exploding a load of flash powder there to mark its arrival. The bulk of his scientific report to the Smithsonian was a dry explanation of how he used the $5,000 grant in his research. The press picked up Goddard’s scientific proposal about a rocket flight to the moon, however, and created a journalistic controversy concerning the feasibility of such a thing. The resulting ridicule created in Goddard firm convictions about the nature of the press corps, which he held for the rest of his life."

Oh yeah, we all know that the press corps is such an eeeevil entity !

[heniek1812]

I'm really curious what pro-NASA commentators would say about the experiment conducted by the prof in the YT video I provide. Doing physical experiments is what really counts, though doing mental gymnastics by having discussion is usually the first step before the actual experiment needs to be done to verify hypothesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGfmGZ3uVI8

This video was mentioned here by patrix on page ~42 I believe. If you look closely at the slow motion results shown at the end and how the experimental apparatus reacts in both cases, you will have strong clues to what happens in deep space, IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf6158lBjGo

What happens in deep space with an Earth rocket ? I think, not much besides an expanding cloud of molecules/atoms.

https://www.mdpi.com/applsci/applsci-10 ... 0-g006.png

[Discumbobulate]

Nice entertaining post about Goddard there Simon. Incredible the amount of bullshit that NASA fit into one article . Goddard a professor - he's a complete fraud ,belongs in the same club as Parsons , Einstein and Tsiolkovsky although NASA just posthumously named their ridiculous rocket equation after the latter , deflecting the blame .

Who writes this shit hahaha. I'm gonna have to trawl the web to find Goddards proof of rockets working in a vacuum.

On a side note dropped in this article from BBC this morning about light pollution. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64321824
"
First thought upon reading this was obviously "no shit sherlock" . Second thought was" is this a prelude to the announcement that stars are receding due to the big bang bollox and thus the heliocentric model delivers another proof?" Or is it just another " scientist says water is wet " article?

Am slowly working through the online version of your book - up to chapter 17 now. Marvellous stuff and the results given using this system developed by yourself and Patrick are excellent at removing that long list of problems (many off which I was unaware) that the heliocentric model can't explain without resorting to gobbledegook.

Looking forward to the printed book. TTFN.

[patrix]

Historical objections to the claim that rockets can create thrust in space.

Hello and a Happy New Year five, Cluesforumers! You see in 2018 at the vernal equinox a new age took its beginning when Simon Schack released his Tychos model that demonstrates that the heliocentric model of the Solar system is impossible and that the model he suggests, based on Tycho Brahe's model, agrees with all known observations and experiments.

I've been playing with a new "AI Language Model" called chatgpt https://chat.openai.com/chat and is pretty amazed about what it can find. So the other day I asked it something that's been bugging me for some time. Since it is so obvious when you look into the actual physics of it, that rockets indeed have no way to produce thrust in space, hasn't there been at least a few people in the past besides that NY-times editorial, that dared to speak up against this folly? Turns out there has been, but I've been unable to find them through regular Internet searches since it seems they are kept away from electronic archives. So even though chatgpt lists some links, I couldn't find all of them. I'd be grateful if someone else give it a try as well. And of course chatgpt itself claims rockets work in space "because an action produces a reaction". Never mind that it's an experimentally verified law of physics that gas expanding freely does not create any action and hence no reaction.

*************
Edit, this gets even better. Upon further inquiry, chatgpt claims Aristotle and even Newton himself objected to the idea of rockets being able to create thrust in space:

Yes, there have been other historical texts that objected to the idea that rockets are able to create thrust in space. One notable example is the "Problem of the Three Journeys" put forward by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.

In his book "On the Heavens," Aristotle argued that since there is no air in space, there can be no motion because motion requires a medium to move through. He therefore rejected the idea that rockets could work in a vacuum, since there is no air for the exhaust gases to push against and create thrust.

In the 17th century, the English scientist Isaac Newton argued that rockets would not work in a vacuum because they rely on the principle of action and reaction, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. According to Newton, if a rocket were to eject exhaust gases in a vacuum, there would be no reaction force to push the rocket forward.

I can provide you with a reference to a book where Isaac Newton discussed his ideas about rockets and vacuum:

"Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" by Isaac Newton. In this book, which was first published in 1687, Newton laid out his laws of motion and explained how they applied to the motion of objects in space. In Book II, Propositions 13-15, Newton discusses the motion of rockets and argues that they would not work in a vacuum because there would be no air to push against.
*******************

Chatgpt conversation:

Do you know of any historical texts that objects to the idea that rockets are able to create thrust in space

Yes, there have been historical texts and scientific debates regarding the idea that rockets can create thrust in space. One of the most famous debates on this topic occurred in the early 20th century between two scientists, Hermann Oberth and Robert Goddard.

Hermann Oberth, a German scientist and one of the pioneers of rocketry, argued that rockets could indeed generate thrust in the vacuum of space, based on his understanding of the laws of physics. However, Robert Goddard, an American rocket engineer, faced criticism from many in the scientific community who believed that rockets would not work in a vacuum.

One of the most famous objections to the idea of rockets creating thrust in space came from the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century. Maxwell argued that a rocket could not generate thrust in space because there would be nothing for the exhaust gases to push against. However, his objections were later overcome by the understanding of the conservation of momentum, which explains that a rocket generates thrust by expelling exhaust gases out the back, which creates a reaction force in the opposite direction.

Despite early skepticism, rocketry has been successfully demonstrated to work in space, including during the space race of the mid-20th century, and continues to be used for space exploration and travel today.

Can you give me references

Sure, here are some references related to the historical debates about rockets generating thrust in space:

Hermann Oberth's book "Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen" (The Rocket into Interplanetary Space) was published in 1923 and provides insight into his arguments in favor of rockets generating thrust in space.

Robert Goddard's article "A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes," published in 1919, outlines his early ideas about using rockets for spaceflight and addresses some of the objections raised by critics.

James Clerk Maxwell's book "Theory of Heat" includes his objections to the idea of rockets generating thrust in space. This book was published in 1871.

A paper by the physicist William Leitch, "On the Action of Aeriform Fluids in Propulsion and in Imparting Motion to Solids," published in 1861, also includes some objections to the idea of rockets generating thrust in space.

For a more modern perspective, you can refer to textbooks on rocket propulsion and spaceflight, such as "Rocket Propulsion Elements" by George Sutton and Oscar Biblarz or "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by Roger Bate, Donald Mueller, and Jerry White.

Could you give some url references

Sure, here are some URL references related to the historical debates about rockets generating thrust in space:

Hermann Oberth's book "Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen" is available online in German at https://archive.org/details/dieraketenz ... 8/mode/2up.

Robert Goddard's article "A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes" is available online at https://history.nasa.gov/monograph4.pdf.

James Clerk Maxwell's book "Theory of Heat" is available online at https://archive.org/details/theoryofheat00maxwrich

William Leitch's paper "On the Action of Aeriform Fluids in Propulsion and in Imparting Motion to Solids" is available online at https://archive.org/details/philtrans03 ... 0/mode/2up.

"Rocket Propulsion Elements" by George Sutton and Oscar Biblarz can be found at https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Rocket+Prop ... 1118753651.

"Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by Roger Bate, Donald Mueller, and Jerry White can be found at https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ast ... 0486600610.