Comments by "Steven Curtis" (@stevencurtis7157) on "Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized" video.
-
384
-
51
-
30
-
21
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
@dr.davidbannerf.e.s.6217 I already responded to your assertions about relative motion/acceleration. Acceleration is change in velocity. If you are holding the bowling ball, it doesn't matter whether you're still or moving at 1000 mph, if you throw the bowling ball away from yourself at a speed you perceive to be 30 mph, you will gain the same 2 mph regardless of your initial speed. Do you have some way to refute this?
I mean, your model suggests that if you were flying in a supersonic jet and fired a pistol toward the rear of the plane, you would get much less recoil because the gun won't be accelerated as much. Even assuming that the plane had to be a vacuum chamber, that's blatantly and obviously untrue.
I mean, just walking on a plane would be a problem. To even move toward the front of the plane, you should need to apply enough force to push yourself forward faster than the plane just to start walking. Meanwhile, the force required to walk to the back of the plane must be so low that you'd shoot backwards at high speed and splatter on the back wall like you jumped off a skyscraper.
I'm calling this as your last chance to address my rebuttal. If you don't respond to the contention, then you're officially dunce-cap of the week. Since all your posts are predicated on that claim, you better have something good.
15
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
6
-
Andrew cianciotta This is the thing I don't get, man. It's a demonstrable fact that atmosheric drag is a thing, that's air slowing things down, and rockets work better without any air impeding their acceleration. That's why a feather falls at full speed in a vacuum. The principle of a vacuum being a space which is devoid of any matter and not something which pulls on things is demonstrated by the atmosphere not getting sucked into space entirely. There's nothing pulling it away, it's held to the planet by gravitation, and it's too heavy to reach escape velocity on its own.
I guarantee you that if a rocket's combustion chamber is full and the rocket is firing, there's pressure, and if that pressure can escape, there's going to be a force. That's true and easily demonstrated. Set up a small fire extinguisher to go off in a vacuum chamber and watch it knock itself over. It's always the same with conspiracy theorists. To you, we're all just paid shills, sad brainwashed masses clinging to a worldview, egotistical ideologues out to belittle and shame anyone who doesnt agree with us.
Fuck you, I'm none of those things. Get over your irrational distrust of the established science. It's not established because it's a fictional paradigm held up by a cabal of cultist nerds, it's established because it holds up to all the scrutiny that has ever been thrown at it, and your attacks on it are like chucking spears at a titanium fortress.
I argue with people like you because I can't believe how willing you are to seek your favored facts by avoiding the actual truth. I have to share a world with you. I have wanted most of my life to understand the world, the universe, and I want that for everyone. If you really understood the science of understanding the world, you'd know how important questioning the established science is to the process of discovery, but you have to understand the model it describes before you can try to break it. Otherwise, you're just making a fool of yourself, and I promise you that if you tried, you'd look back at what you once believed and feel foolish. You would want to try to remedy that, and you'd get called a shill and brainwashed and egotistical.
Join the fucking club.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jasongrice6571 Ironic, since it's the conspiracy theorists and science deniers who are the ones who always, always try to refute the facts using a single argument 'gotcha!' For example, someone might say rockets going sideways means they're slowing down and losing altitude. That would be pretty short-sighted considering that you can measure their velocity and altitude to still be increasing, we know that they need to gain a huge amount of horizontal speed to reach orbital speed so they start going sideways early on, and you can observe satellites, the ISS for example, which if it was a plane would have to be running its engines 24/7 to go faster than any known plane at an altitude so high no plane could even fly in principle since there's effectively no atmosphere.
Yes, my entire worldview hinges on a single point that calms my wracked nerves so I don't have to kneel in a corner chanting "Earth's a globe, NASA is real" to myself. I obviously don't value knowledge, am completely ignorant of the world around me, and would never take the chance not only to learn about but also understand and be able to use the most fundamentally important principles of physics. No, I'm just some placated sheep, never questioning anything.
"You people" he says.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arlanwade3268 a vacuum chamber has more particles in it than the vacuum of interplanetary space, but most of what's done in space is in low earth orbit, which has a much higher density of gas than interplanetary space, yet both offer effectively zero air resistance over a short time period. That's the fundamental similarity, and that's why treating them as though they're not at all comparable is ridiculous. The fact that space is effectively infinite in that a rocket can't rapidly fill space with gas whereas it can nearly instantly fill a vacuum chamber just means that the experiment in the video is somewhat flawed, but you missed the most important part, which is that the rocket begins to accelerate immediately, regardless of what the pressure is. Rocket exhaust has no reason to go anywhere without force acting on it, just like anything else. A stationary atom would not move just by being exposed to vacuum any more than a basketball would be sucked out of a literally vacuum-empty bucket if exposed to vacuum. But gases in a sealed tank or rocket's combustion chamber are not stationary, they are under pressure and are moving around and bouncing into each other and the walls of their container. When you open that container, the particles that were moving toward the opening are suddenly allowed to escape, and they both take their momentum away with them and are no longer in the chamber for the other particles to bounce off of. The net result is that all that gas is going to eventually bounce off the front of the tank or impart momentum on another particle before leaving the tank, carrying away momentum and forcing the container the other way. Vacuums don't suck. I can't explain this any more clearly. Please let me know what you take issue with.
2
-
2
-
@arlanwade3268 "A sharp turn at light speed" doesn't really mean much because of relativity. If you're going at near-lightspeed relatively to some planet/star, and then you decide you want to be going 90° to your left within a few seconds, then yeah, the force to do that would be fatal to you, the ship and probably a decent radius of space around the ship. But, say you were just floating in space, decided to start moving, and then started accelerating in a circle like you're doing donuts in a car. That relatively small, safe acceleration would be the same whether you're moving close to the speed of light or not, relative to a planet or anything else. If you just did normal acceleration in the first example, you would accelerate slowly and the turn wouldn't be sharp at all, but it wouldn't be unsafe just because you're going fast.
The interesting dust would, however, be as deadly as you mentioned.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@crystalgiddens7276 If you'd ever paid attention to science, you wouldn't be surprised or alarmed by any of the things you've mentioned. Global warming is a problem that will make life harder for us, but it won't destroy the world or anything cataclysmic. It has been known for a long time that earth's earth's atmospheres doesn't really end anywhere, it just slowly fades to nothing. So unless by "just" you mean that they found out it was slightly different than expected, you might be behind.
I already know this. I believe what I was taught of course. How could you not know this? However, many things can be verified by smaller scale experiments, many of which I've done or have seen done. I know what I know, and I don't conclude that rockets work in space because anyone told me they do, I was presented with the idea that they DON'T work in space and had to conclude that it was incorrect because the explanation doesn't hold. I'm not some naive fucking idiot. I know the limits of my knowledge, I assume that anything I think I know could potentially be inaccurate, imprecise or even completely wrong. I figured that out when I was a kid. It's not some lofty concept, it's a starting point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NotAnotherFucking I said it would cancel out. That is correct. I was not talking about a case where pressure was increasing. Ignoring certain things for the sake of explaining a single concept is commonplace in scientific explanations. Ignore friction, ignore drag, assume constant speed, etc. in a closed chamber of constant pressure, the gas bouncing around is imparting momentum every time it hits a part of the chamber. Every time it hits the opposite side, the tiny bit of momentum it imparted before is cancelled out. Net effect with everything bouncing around, particles colliding with other particles, is zero thrust. Even if there was combustion, there's no thrust. Also, nevermind that explosions were irrelevant to the point, it wouldn't explode anyway. I forgot to mention that the combustion chamber has titanium walls that are a hundred meters thick. Don't make unnecessary assumptions and then frame it as a gotcha.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1