Space Things

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

If heat cannot travel through the vacuum of space, then how does a "spacecraft," of any kind, propel itself through "space?"

Newton’s 3rd law of motion.

[Ultramaroon]

bruh

[spcmafia]

Holy shit.

What in the name of Bunta is going on here.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Please provide a photo of a "satellite" in "space" that is not CGI or photoshopped. Until you can provide photo evidence, satellites cannot be proven to exist.

Ok. I will as soon as you can provide a real photo of a flat earth.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Newton's "3rd law of motion" doesn't work in the "vacuum of space." In a "vacuum of space," there is nothing to provide the "reaction" needed for propulsion. By stating otherwise, it would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, as well as a violation of the law of entropy.

Rocket fuel has mass.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Please provide a photo of a "satellite" in "space" that is not CGI or photoshopped. Until you can provide photo evidence, satellites cannot be proven to exist.
The official narrative paints a picture like this:

This is probably a waste of time because any "proof" via photo or video will just be dismissed as fake. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try.

Also, at any one time there are about 9k planes in the air, and there are 11k satellites. Look up in the sky. See any planes? I guess planes don't exist. What? The planes aren't blocking out the sky? Right, 11k is not that many objects, and the satellites are hundreds of miles higher. The renderings of satellites around earth aren't to show actually density because satellites aren't proportionally as big as they are depicted in such renderings. It is to illustrate the increasing number of objects in near earth orbit. Artists can't create an image to scale for such an image. You can't see a building or even some small islands or countries from such perspective because they are too small. You can't see a satellite.

How about video?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Newton's "3rd law of motion" doesn't work in the "vacuum of space." In a "vacuum of space," there is nothing to provide the "reaction" needed for propulsion. By stating otherwise, it would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, as well as a violation of the law of entropy.

Uh, no. The propulsion force can act on the spacecraft and because of the 3rd law of motion the reaction would be to push it.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Here is photo evidence showing the earth is flat.

None of those show a flat earth. Show me a picture of the entire flat earth.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Newton's "3rd law of motion" doesn't work in the "vacuum of space." In a "vacuum of space," there is nothing to provide the "reaction" needed for propulsion. By stating otherwise, it would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, as well as a violation of the law of entropy.

What are you talking about? Newton's LAW of motion doesn't work in space? WTF? Bro stop. You can't be serious right now.

feeding the troll: I explained this before, but clearly you can't read. Could you fire a gun in space? You could, right? That is because everything you need to propel the led end of the bullet is in the gunpowder propellent. Similarly, if you explode fuel and liquid oxygen from a rocket engine, it propels the rocket because of the conservation of momentum (something goes one direction, the other thing must go the opposite direction). P=mv. But there is more: just ejecting the mass of propellant out the rear of a rocket is like throwing a bowling ball in space; it will cause motion, but it isn't as effective. By exploding fuel in a confined space like in the case of an engine, there is a propagating pressure wave. In the case of the engine, it propels the piston. In a rocket, it pushes against a wall of hot, high pressure gases all trying to leave a small opening (gases pushing against trapped gases). This propels the rocket forward more effectively than just ejecting mass, and it ejects it faster. The faster it ejects something, momentum is conserved, so the faster the object travels. In space, there is an advantage that you don't have air resistance (friction) or as much or any gravity to fight, so it takes far less propellants to do the same job.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Here is photo evidence showing the earth is flat.

Nothing showing a flat earth. Just like the fish eye lens can create a round image of a flat surface, a flat image can come from taking a picture of something round from close up. Show me a picture of the entire earth that is flat. All I have every seen are renderings.

8 inches per mile times 52 miles is 416 inches or 35 feet, which means at sea level, you wouldn't see the first 2-3 floors of building, but could still see the city. Stand on top of a mountain, like in that picture, and you can see all but may a few inches.

The reasons rays of light seem to converge is similar to how a highway seems to converge to a point in the distance despite the highway width being parallel.

[Spuds]

Ok this is cool. Flight of the Parker Solar Probe through a coronal mass ejection. I'd need to look up the instrument they are using to understand exactly what I'm looking at and "hearing" but still pretty cool at first glance. More details in the video description that I can't copy using my phone.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

In a "vacuum" rocket fuel cannot burn and it has nothing to act on, so propulsion would be impossible. The second law of thermodynamics indicate the fuel would be useless in a vacuum.
The reality is, there is no "space" or "vacuum of space." If it existed, it would have to be contained and have a solid barrier from the air we breathe. If a "spaceship" were to somehow pierce this solid barrier, the "vacuum" would displace all of the air in our "atmosphere" according to the law of entropy.

This is incorrect. Your understanding of science is elementary at best. Fuel needs an oxidizing agent and something to initiate the spark or start the reaction. Some reagents don't need oxygen or a spark to react to create volatile, exothermic or volumizing reagents. Basic chemistry. Basic observations. We could make a mini rocket with soda and Mentos.

Second law is conserved for a rocket in space/vacuum. Chemical energy in a state of low entropy (high energy state) is exploded into a high entropy (lower energy state) where molecules are broken apart and forced out of one end of the rocket to be shot out and eventually they dissipate and spread out, but to get out that pressure creates force that accelerates a rocket. Shake a bottle of wine and shoot out the cork. Same thing.



Space is a vacuum because it is devoid of matter. It isn't an actual vacuum cleaner, sucking things. You are confusing those definitions. The reason things get "sucked" out into space is because air in a ship is flowing out of the door into space, which is no different than you laying in a freestanding pool and being washed away with the water if the side breaks. The reason everything doesn't float away is because of Einstein's general theory of relativity and Newtonian gravity.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

It would have to have something to push against, in order to produce propulsion; that "something" can't exist in a "vacuum."

When you shoot a gun or cannon, why is there kickback or recoil? Conservation of momentum. What if an astronaut was floating in space with a machine gun and started firing rounds in one direction; wouldn't they be pushed back because of the recoil in the opposite direction? Now, instead of an astronaut, what if it was a rocket with a huge gun? What if it wasn't a bullet with gunpowder or a cannon ball with packing/gunpowder, but rocketfuel and liquid oxygen that was ignited into an explosion? What if instead of a bullet being shot in one direction, it was just fuel that was shot out of the cannon, but a lot of fuel and constantly? What if instead of a smooth bore, there was a stricture in the propellant that sped up the flow like the spout of that soda bottle with the Mentos explosion. Are you getting the picture? The propellant wants to leave faster than the expelled propellant is getting out of the way, so it also pushes on itself. A fire hose would go wild flailing around in a vacuum just as much as it does in atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

The first five seconds, when the camera bounces, you can clearly tell it's a fish eye lens, like a Go-Pro. Where are all the other "satellites" if there are so many in "space?"

You asked to see a satellite. That is a satellite. Yes, it is a wide angle lens. There are plenty of images of the globe from space. There are 11k satellites. You can barely see cars from a commercial just six miles up. You think you are going to see another satellite in space spread out over such a large area. You could have 11,000 people in all of the US, and you would be lucky to have them run into each other. There is 3.5 million square miles in the US, which means 11k people/satellites would have an area of 318 square miles each...and that is just the US. At 196 million square miles for Earth, this is one satellite every 17,800 square miles. It would be an even larger needle in a haystack 250 extra miles above the surface, and remember, it was hard to make out a car from six miles away. How about from a hundred or from a thousand or from several thousand miles away, and satellites are smaller than cars.