One thing no one can disprove...

[Logos]

I think I am still kinda lost on where the differences in space vs. the atmosphere would cause physics to suspend in terms of action/reaction?

It's funny how even though space is quite a different environment than that of terra firma people just assume things must work the same up there as they do down here. Of course, it's just an assumption because it has not been, and most likely cannot be, proven either way for reasons I've already stated. It's funny how this point is being ignored. Anyhow, the physics of action/reaction is not being suspended. I think people are mistaken as to what constitutes the reaction.

If chemical reactions can still create dramatic pressure increases despite a total lack of oxygen (and they can, as chambers on earth can show), then to continue down this kinda odd line of thinking..what else in space would be different to prevent the propulsion produced by the release of great pressure from an object?

That's a point I've expounded on in previous posts: In the vacuum of space there is no "release of great pressure" from the nozzle of a rocket engine because the exhaust gases themselves are not *under* pressure. As I previously explained: to be "under pressure" the exhaust gasses would have be under the pressure of, i.e., be ejected by, the force of something else. I think people are applying the same dynamic of a bullet fired from a gun which doesn't apply here. Again, the gasses are not ejected, they merely expand and take the path of zero resistance (exhaust cone open to the vacuum of space). The effect of great pressure from the expanding exhaust gas only occurs on earth because of the resistance the escaping gas encounters from the surrounding dense atmosphere. It is this resistance that produces the eventual reaction of the rocket moving in the opposite direction, i.e., moving away from the launch pad, in the same way the bullet in a gun provides much resistance to the expansion of the gunpowder gases, thus causing the eventual reaction of both the bullet moving out the barrel and the gun recoiling in the opposite direction. If a bullet is fired from a gun in space it will behave the same way as on earth: bullet out the barrel, gun body recoiling in the opposite direction. A rocket in space, however, won't have the resistance provided to its exhaust gases by a dense atmosphere so the desired reaction of the rocket moving in the opposite direction will not occur.

Don't get me wrong--reaction does occur: the exhaust gas molecules will fly off into space in many directions to eventually react with space dust, a passing meteor, a planet's atmosphere, etc., and transfer their momentum to the molecules making up those things--everything and anything except the rocket body.

We can note the lack of gravity...but is it gravity as a required factor which causes a tube to move opposite from the direction which great pressure is being released?

Gravity has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

What would make us think rockets can't function up there?

[Logos]

Not us only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Instead of addressing the issue at hand you resort to character assassination because I won't blindly accept what amounts to a religious view?

I believe in evidence but if you don't that's fine with me. 

[Logos]

Wait a dang minute ... what?
Are You saying the Earth isn't flat?   

However, We have photos acquired from Space Satellites (put there by teleportation, NOT rocket power, Sir Logos...) 

I believe you--I really do. If you say so it must be true especially with that image to back it up.
After all, images equate to reality. 

[Logos]

Where are the elephants, holding  the diskworld up?   

They were airbrushed out of the photo because that doesn't support the official narrative. 

[ArMaP]

The same applies to you.

I don't say that the things that I don't agree with are fake.

I haven't been proven wrong.

You haven't proved you're right either.

Just saying what you think is no proof, and, considering the amount of space craft launched by several countries, you are the one that should present proof that all those missions were either fake or that they were using some other method.

[ArMaP]

In the vacuum of space there is no "release of great pressure" from the nozzle of a rocket engine because the exhaust gases themselves are not *under* pressure. As I previously explained: to be "under pressure" the exhaust gasses would have be under the pressure of, i.e., be ejected by, the force of something else. I think people are applying the same dynamic of a bullet fired from a gun which doesn't apply here. Again, the gasses are not ejected, they merely expand and take the path of zero resistance (exhaust cone open to the vacuum of space).

First let me say that I know nothing about thermodynamics.

In the vacuum of space, if you create 10 cubic metres of gas inside a 1 cubic metre chamber with an exit, does the gas exit the chamber in a jet or does it just floats out? If it just floats out, how long does it take to do that?

[Logos]

I don't say that the things that I don't agree with are fake.
You haven't proved you're right either. Exactly! That's been my point all along. The question has not and cannot be resolved either way because we lack the means to settle the question.

Just saying what you think is no proof, and, considering the amount of space craft launched by several countries, you are the one that should present proof that all those missions were either fake or that they were using some other method.

It is NASA and those other space agencies which should prove that they're actually sending craft into outer space as they claim. Just because we can see a rocket launch from the earth doesn't mean said rocket is actually going into outer space.

No one is in the position of having to prove said entities didn't and aren't doing what they claim. They are the claimants thus the burden of proof is on them.

[Logos]

First let me say that I know nothing about thermodynamics.

In the vacuum of space, if you create 10 cubic metres of gas inside a 1 cubic metre chamber with an exit, does the gas exit the chamber in a jet or does it just floats out? If it just floats out, how long does it take to do that?

It floats out *very* quickly, in a period that would almost seem instantaneous. "Jet" is not the right word as that conjures up an image of a more directed stream under pressure as would happen on earth.

For example: on earth if you had a highly pressurized gas tank, like your typical long welding gas tank, lying on its side and with a sledgehammer knocked off the valve one would probably see the gas tank move in the opposite direction, just like this has been depicted in Hollywierd films. Note: this isn't the same dynamic as a rocket being launched on earth but is mentioned for illustration.

OTOH, picture that same tank floating in outer space and you're in a space suit next to it. There's a time delay mechanism on the valve that will, in an instant, open it all the way. It is my position that when that valve opens the gas will, in an instant, escape into space though I'm not sure what, if anything, it would look like as it did so. Anyhow, I'm saying you will see that the tank has not moved a millimeter because, upon escaping, the gas will have exerted no pressure on the inside wall of the tank even though on earth, it would have.

This is the "free exapansion" of gases principle I mentioned earlier. NASA and scientists will say that the tank would move yet this is just a supposition. This experiment, or one like it, cannot readily be carried out to determine if the tank (or rocket) will in fact behave as they expect in outer space. However, the "free expansion" principle is the result of experiments that have been carried out which would indicate that what NASA says will happen up there actually won't. But hey, my take on all this is just a theory, too.

Until such an experiment can be readily done by ordinary people either up there or in an identical environment replicated on earth--good luck doing either of those!--what the "establishment" has told us remains a theory. We shouldn't be compelled to accept as fact a statement from scientists that even they haven't proven via their precious published, "peer reviewed" experiments.

[ArMaP]

It is NASA and those other space agencies which should prove that they're actually sending craft into outer space as they claim. Just because we can see a rocket launch from the earth doesn't mean said rocket is actually going into outer space.

No one is in the position of having to prove said entities didn't and aren't doing what they claim. They are the claimants thus the burden of proof is on them.

So, basically, you are calling them liars because you think what they say they do it's impossible.

Is that it?

[ArMaP]

It floats out *very* quickly, in a period that would almost seem instantaneous. "Jet" is not the right word as that conjures up an image of a more directed stream under pressure as would happen on earth.

How does that happen? How can the gas "float out" almost instantaneously? Wouldn't the gas molecules hit each other while passing through the opening, slowing them down?

This is the "free exapansion" of gases principle I mentioned earlier.

As I said before, I know nothing about thermodynamics and things like that, but, to me, that's not the "free expansion" you mentioned, as, to me, that "free expansion" applies to a gas expanding by itself (like part of a gas expanding from the heat received by a laser, for example), not exiting a container where it was under pressure.

However, the "free expansion" principle is the result of experiments that have been carried out which would indicate that what NASA says will happen up there actually won't.

Experiments done in what conditions, Earth conditions or space conditions?

Until such an experiment can be readily done by ordinary people either up there or in an identical environment replicated on earth--good luck doing either of those!--what the "establishment" has told us remains a theory. We shouldn't be compelled to accept as fact a statement from scientists that even they haven't proven via their precious published, "peer reviewed" experiments.

So, how do you think things happened? Did the people responsible for the first high altitude rocket flights noticed that things were not as they expected (the rocket slowing down because of less air pressure instead of getting faster) but didn't tell anyone and didn't write about it and create a new propulsion system that they didn't publish?

[Logos]

So, basically, you are calling them liars because you think what they say they do it's impossible.

Is that it?

I'm demanding they "put up or shut up" or, like Carl Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

It's funny how on a forum such as this, which is supposedly devoted to questioning what we are told by the PowersThatBe(tm)--especially NASA, that this notion would encounter such resistance. It seems double minded to doubt what authorities say on the one hand and simultaneously attack anyone who questions said authorities with the other, because anyone who would question what authorities tell them is a tin foil hat nutjob even though the authorities are believed to be liars. 

Anyhow, what I may think or say about them doesn't matter. It's what they're saying--or rather, what they're not--that is the issue.

[Logos]

How does that happen? How can the gas "float out" almost instantaneously? Because there's nothing at that point forcing the molecules to remain in proximity to each other.

Wouldn't the gas molecules hit each other while passing through the opening, slowing them down? Even if they were slowed down because they were exiting via a very tiny opening--not that I'm saying they would be because I don't know--they wouldn't impart a force to anything else while exiting.

As I said before, I know nothing about thermodynamics and things like that, but, to me, that's not the "free expansion" you mentioned, as, to me, that "free expansion" applies to a gas expanding by itself (like part of a gas expanding from the heat received by a laser, for example), not exiting a container where it was under pressure. How the gas got to be under pressure doesn't matter. Gases are always "under pressure" trying to expand and do so to the extent that they are restricted by an outside force, e.g., being in a tank or being a planet's atmosphere that doesn't expand/escape out to infinity because the molecules are pulled to the planet's surface by gravity.

Experiments done in what conditions, Earth conditions or space conditions? The published experiments go back to the 1850s or so, thus I'd put my money on them having been done in Earth conditions. "Free Expansion" is also known as the "Joule-Thomson" effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson, two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry. For example, a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002 NASA knows of this and mentions it in their DICTIONARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS FOR AEROSPACE USE. However, they slipped it in to the entry for first law of thermodynamics: http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html The principle states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expands into the vacuum without doing any work. The gas is not "pulled" or "sucked" into the vacuum nor is it "pushed" out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost. We have a rocket generating a high volume of gas at a high pressure (high pressure on Earth, at least) generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. No work == no movement.

So, how do you think things happened? Did the people responsible for the first high altitude rocket flights noticed that things were not as they expected (the rocket slowing down because of less air pressure instead of getting faster) but didn't tell anyone and didn't write about it and create a new propulsion system that they didn't publish? It's unproductive to speculate about what, if anything, really may have happened otherwise. By doing so one assumes a burden one isn't obligated to bear. Again, it's not for us to explain "what", if anything, even "did" happen. It is for NASA to prove their claims. This is no different from a court of law situation, which is also how people interact in their personal lives: the claimant/plaintiff/prosecutor has the burden of proof, the respondant/defendant, none.

[ArMaP]

I'm demanding they "put up or shut up" or, like Carl Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

I never liked that Carl Sagan expression, as the proof only needs to be correct, it doesn't need to be extraordinary to proof something is real, but I never really liked Carl Sagan either.

Anyway, I think all those satellites around us prove that the system works, so I think that anyone saying that's not true are the ones that need to prove their point.

It seems double minded to doubt what authorities say on the one hand and simultaneously attack anyone who questions said authorities with the other, because anyone who would question what authorities tell them is a tin foil hat nutjob even though the authorities are believed to be liars. 

I don't start by considering anyone a liar, authorities or not, I always start to accept what anyone tells me, if they show enough evidence and until proven wrong.

[ArMaP]

Because there's nothing at that point forcing the molecules to remain in proximity to each other.

So, they would move instantaneously from a point to another?

How the gas got to be under pressure doesn't matter. Gases are always "under pressure" trying to expand and do so to the extent that they are restricted by an outside force, e.g., being in a tank or being a planet's atmosphere that doesn't expand/escape out to infinity because the molecules are pulled to the planet's surface by gravity.

A planet's atmosphere expands, but not outside the planet. It's the expansion and compression of the atmosphere that creates the wind.

No work == no movement.

I think there's a definition missing in this, the definition of "work". In this context, what does "work" represents?

It's unproductive to speculate about what, if anything, really may have happened otherwise.

I don't think so, as all things have a history behind them, so, if people thought that rockets would work in space and they do not there must have been a point in time in which people started to notice that things didn't work as they were expecting.

[Glaucon]

One thing I noticed is that, some times, those that have the strongest beliefs are the ones that change to a new one more easily. That's why I try to avoid strong beliefs

Amen brother