|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 26, 2015 2:52:09 GMT
NASA IS A BOGUS HOAX AGENCY WHO CAN'T EVEN GET INTO AN ORBIT I would like to draw attention to the fact that space travel is not possible by rockets due to the fact that propulsion needs atmosphere, also navigating in near vacuum conditions is not possible as a rocket will wildy spin(not having sufficient atmosphere to stabilise any motion).So what we see is as rockets approach thinner and thinner atmosphere they simply begin to turn and bear down , What goes up must come down . There is no orbit in outer space, only lighter then air vehicles can float in the atmosphere otherwise you need enough propulsion to maintain at least an equal force of thrust to counter the downward bearing force due to mass .And that is why space satellites are also a hoax there is only lighter then air vehicles situated in the atmosphere not space . vedic-cosmos-asitis.boards.net/thread/14/satellites-hoax-space
We know Nasa claims they can use rockets in space but considering Nasa reputation as a known dacoit simply faking space travel in order to fleece the unsuspecting people of there govt taxes , who in there right mind would take anything they say as reliable . The following is scientific proof that rockets will not work in space .
Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. 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.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002 ]
As if Free Expansion wasn’t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for “W=PV”
lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia2B/Thermo.pdf
If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy then it has done no work.
One might argue that a gun creates a recoil effect yet this analogy is not applicable because we are talking about rockets not revolvers.
Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.
Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.
The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.
Nasa claims to shoot into outerspace but they are simply nonsense rascals firing blanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 2, 2016 2:12:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete71 on Oct 17, 2017 18:35:00 GMT
A gun may not recoil in space as much as predicted. Here is how gun recoil happens:
A system designed to reduce the recoil of any ball and powder type weapon such as guns, rifles, cannons or the like is disclosed. In a ball and powder type weapon the bullet or shell is propelled out of the barrel by the high pressure created by the explosion of the powder. Not only is the bullet or shell propelled out of the barrel but the air and other hot gasses are also jetted out of the barrel. Due to the fact that the air and other hot gasses are jetted out of the barrel, a vacuum is created in the barrel. After the shell or bullet and the hot gasses are jetted out of the barrel, air from the outside due to atmospheric pressure rushes back into the evacuated barrel and it is this rush of air back into the barrel that is the major cause of recoil in a ball and powder type weapon. The system of this invention reduces the recoil caused by this rush of air back into the barrel by providing a plurality of chambers that communicate with the bore of the weapon through separate channels or ports. A different one of the channels or ports couples each chamber to the bore of the weapon and each channel or port is provided with an adjustable needle valve. When the weapon is fired, some of the gasses in the bore flow into each chamber through the channels. When the bullet or shell exits from the barrel, the gasses in each chamber flow back into the evacuated bore. The gasses flowing back into the bore increase the pressure in the bore and create a cushion in the breech area of the weapon for the air entering the bore from the outside, thereby reducing the recoil of the weapon and the breech noise.
So with no air to re enter the barrel in space very little recoil would happen. Hypothetically the propulsive gas may even find enough ports of escape to prevent the bullet from leaving the barrel.
So theoretically rocket can not work in space. Curious.
|
|
Christophe Fournier
Guest
|
Post by Christophe Fournier on Apr 17, 2018 19:24:44 GMT
No atmosphere no friction and no propulsion in space !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by uncommonsense321 on Nov 3, 2018 1:18:15 GMT
Thank you for using the PV work formula, and free expansion I have challanged several people with this argument using both of the examples you used here, along with trying to explain to people that without mass there is no opposite and equal reaction, also the pushing off of the exaust nozzle as NASA claims would be the same as putting a jack under the transfer case of a rear wheel drive car, jacking the tires off the ground, starting the engine, putting the car in drive and expecting the car to push off its own frame, there is action as the wheels turn but there is no ground resistance to get a reaction. There is no way a 1969 tin can that has fire coming out of its nozzle can produce thrust in a vacuum. The pressure external is zero and the volume can not change so the work done is zero. No one cares if combustion happens, or how it happens because no work or propulsion happens. The only way anyone can get to the moon is if there was no such thing as space or the moon is in our atmosphere. These space fakers lie about everything so the sun and moon are probibilly much closer than they profess. The book of Enoch says the sun, and moon are the same size and they are both luminaries that rotate around the circle of earth not the ball earth. A good video is the BBC documentary something funny happened on the way to the moon has proof they faked the moon landing, a mistake NASA made by sending them the wrong video footage that was not for public release, showing them faking the terminator line of earth when they were supposedly half way to the moon and when the cover was taken off the window of the spacecraft you can see the earth fill the cabin with light so they were in low earth orbit not half way to the moon.
|
|
