Comments by "Engineering the weird guy" (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103) on "Scott Manley" channel.

Funny. I can’t see the word atmosphere in any of newtons laws.
8
@vaughanscott7308 right. And which side of the astronaut is illuminated genius? The side facing the camera? Where exactly does that put the light source? Behind the camera. Jesus you can’t even use the logical reasoning of a 4 year old!
6
@vaughanscott7308 what EXACTLY are you expecting to see? Space is nearly entirely empty. If you drove to the sun at 65 miles per hour it would take 163 years of non stop driving to get there. All that space inbetween. Empty. Everything out the other side. Empty. No atmosphere or gasses. Almost completely empty. What is there to see? What EXACTLY we’re you expecting to see?
6
@vaughanscott7308 science and physics aren’t indoctrination. You do experiments all the way through that prove everything you’re learning. As immutable as basic mathematics. Just like pointing out that unless you’re looking at the sun, or something reflecting sunlight in space, you’d see absolutely nothing but blackness. Basic experiment with a laser pointer proves that. Some physics education would have been very useful to you there. You cant build bridges, airplanes, global communications, self driving cars, nuclear energy from “indoctrination” you have to build them with reality. Real life physics and mathematics, or they don’t work.
6
If you think it’s a “NASA” Conspiracy then that just shows how stupid you really are. rocket propulsion as a form of thrust in a vacuum has existed well before NASA was even thought up. Infact the the first ever shot of earth from space, from a camera ontop of a rocket, was taken decades before NASA was even proposed yet alone established.
6
@TerenceHughes4501 no. Because the gas particles are no longer in contact with the craft developing thrust. Unless you think the force is wirelessly transmitted from the exhaust particle hitting at atmosphere particle. Force requires direct physical contact. Gasses are made up of individual particles (like bouncy balls). That are always in motion. 99% of even sea level atmosphere is empty space. Thrust is developed because gas particles make contact with the component developing thrust. For a rocket that’s the combustion chamber, for a jest engine it’s the turbine blades, for a helicopter, it’s the rotary blades. None of it “pushes against atmosphere.” It’s all transfer of momentum which requires direct contact. Go research kinematic theory of gases
5
@TerenceHughes4501 suggesting that thrust is dependant upon actioned gasses pushing against atmosphere is like suggesting a baseball batter doesn’t feel the ting on his bat until someone catches the ball. For an action reaction pair there needs to be physical contact between them. In relation to actioned gasses or exhausts, it’s the particles of gas against the craft. Gas particles have both mass and velocity. Their impacts and transfer of momentum is what causes pressure. Which is a force, but a force that pushes equally in all directions, resulting in no net force. Crafts developing thrust use pressure to generate thrust by manipulating it to create a net force. The thrust is developed by the actioned gas particles hitting the craft being thrusted. Not by the actioned gas particles hitting the surrounding atmospheric particles. Because they need to be in physical contact with the craft developing thrust. You can’t wirelessly transfer force or momentum. It doesn’t work like that.
5
@TerenceHughes4501 here’s a good example. Stand on a skateboard, and throw a box with a 40kg weight inside away from you as hard as you can. You’ll notice you’ll roll backwards a considerable distance. Now let’s try it again with the empty box. If you think thrust is developed by pushing off the atmosphere, then you should travel equally as far backwards by throwing and empty box, as by throwing the same box with 40kg inside. As it’s interacting and pushing through the same volume of air. But that isn’t what happens is it?
5
@vaughanscott7308 if you watch the live space walks you see the sun as they turn around and do things. Genius. If you took a photo with the sun on the background, all you’d see is sun. Everything else would be black. Like taking a photo of a street lamp at night and expecting to see start. Riddle me this. It’s in the middle of the night. You go to take a photo of someone standing next to a spot light that’s point right at you. Do you think their face, features and clothing will come up on the photo? Or will the join in the darkness around the spotlight in the photos. Seriously. How stupid can you be?
5
@vaughanscott7308 what does that look like? You do realise that you only see sunlight the ENTERS your eye. Not any sunlight that passes your eye. Which means it has to be reflect by something and bounced INTO your eye. And if there is nothing there to do that. The only light you’ll see is if you look at the sun. Are you still playing stupid?
5
@vaughanscott7308 for example. You standing next to a laser light. You can see the dog it produces because it’s being reflected off an object into your eye. You can’t see the beam of light heading from the pointer to that spot. Not without some or a something to reflect it. If you turn shine that laser into the sky, short of shining it directly into your eye, you won’t see anything at all. Will you? Maybe catch a cloud or some fog if it’s there but a completely clear night. You won’t see anything. So what makes you think you’d see “sunlight” in space when you’re looking at absolutely nothing?
5
You don’t need something with higher density. You need something with mass. Gas, especially that coming out of the rocket exhaust, has mass. It was moving with the rocket. It enter the combustion chamber, ignited, which rapidly expanded the gas giving it high kinetic energy. It was then released into space in the opposite direction going very VERY fast. Laws of momentum dictate that momentum is conserved. The the momentum of the gas going one way, will equal the momentum of the rocket going the opposite way, which will then cancel out making 0 net change in momentum. Thus momentum is conserved. And momentum is defined as mass times velocity. 100kg of exhaust gas going 2,000m/S is the same momentum as a 1,000kg mass going 200m/S.
4
@vaughanscott7308 you can see the sun space right? There’s your answer genius.
4
@wrillywonka1320 also individual gas particles might have very little mass. But added together it’s a lot of weight. A small BBQ gas bottle carry’s 9kg of LPG gas. A rocket 30 stories tall holds hundreds of tons of fuel which will be burnt. Conservation of mass tells us that this means there will be hundreds of tons of exhaust gas existing the rocket at Mach 8. Not hard to see how that gives you a significant push to a rocket.
3
@entangledmindcells9359 sorry that was meant for papa-doofus
3
@TerenceHughes4501 you’re just wrong.
3
@TerenceHughes4501 lol. The irony of you trying to tell others to “learn some basic physics for crying out loud”
3
@vaughanscott7308 here’s a good experience. Go out at night on a new moon. Far away from any lights. Just you and the stars in a field. Get a laser light. And shine it into the sky. Tell me what you see. (Hint. It will be nothing.) Now do the same thing. But instead of shooting it into the sky, shoot it inside a completely clear vacuum chamber. You’ll get the same result. What is happening is that you’re looking at the a vacuum chamber that’s completely empty. All you see is the walls of the vacuum chamber. Which ironically is what let’s you know that’s it’s empty. Nothing INSIDE the chamber is reflecting light out at your eyes. Just the walls of the chamber. Are you seeing where this is going?
3
@entangledmindcells9359 gas expands equally in all directions. Gas particles bouncing off every surface in every direction, the net force is zero. But the force excerted is called pressure. Which acts equally in all directions. Open the nozzle to let gas escape. This gives a net force. Since the particles exiting the nozzle are no longer colliding with a wall. But there are still particles colliding with the opposite wall. Which is a net force. Net force equals motion. Simple as that.
3
@TerenceHughes4501 in a jet engine, they use heating air to create additional force. The way it works is that air is sucked into the engine, it is compressed by compressor blades, this makes the air hot. That hot air is injected with fuel which ignited. That ignition superheats the air. Thing is, when air is heated, it’s pressure increases. So now the pressure of that air has skyrocketed. So when it’s released out the back it does so with tremendous speed as the pressure energy is converted to kinetic energy. Creating thrust. That exhaust is also run past another turbine which spins the compressor blades and inlet blades. Other jet engines use a bypass which works like a Venturi to suck even more air through the engine increasing thrust. As you can see, it manipulates atmosphere. Rockets do not. Noticeably, rockets don’t have air intakes. Jets do.
2
@TerenceHughes4501 yeah no. At no point did I say the exhausted pushed against the atmosphere. The engine pushes against the exhaust. Like a rocket does. The key difference is that a jet engine is compressing and super heating the incoming air before it exhausts it. Using only a small amount of fuel. A rocket does it entirely on fuel. Hence no intake. Don’t be silly. Stay in school.
2
Are you dense?
2
@vaughanscott7308 when you look inside a vacuum chamber. Do you see anything inside it? Or just the walls that reflect the light back at your eyes? 😂
2
@vaughanscott7308 the walls are apart of the chamber. They are not inside the chamber. If there was something in it. You’d see that object inside it. Since it’s empty, you don’t. That doesn’t mean light isn’t being reflected back into your eyes for other surfaces. Like the chamber walls.
2
except now they land themselves. But true that has been spaceX. what has NASA been doing? well maintaining the space station, conducting experiments in space and on new systems. The rockets that take Astronauts and gear into orbit are old Russian rockets. Not Nasa. In addition, NASA aren't just space. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They do Aeronautics as well. So those tax dollars went into the development of many of the technologies which went into the F22 Raptor. They are also developing more advanced technologies which will go into un-manned drones. Another thing your Tax dollars is going into is in probes and rovers to other planets. they are conceptualizing a submarine probe for a moon with huge depths of liquids which could contain life. They as sending an aerial probe to Mars. A drone which would be able to fly around and map the surface for rovers to investigate. Not spending years on improving a technology which already meets our current needs instead of advancing knowledge in areas which can yield better information for cost is a far better use of their time.
2
@entangledmindcells9359 free body diagram won’t help you kiddo.
1