To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
The funny thing is that atmospheric pressure actually makes rocket engines *less efficient* because the exhaust has to push all that air out of the way in order to expand.
They don't understand that it's Newtons third law which says every action has an equal and opposite reaction so it's throwing stuff (hot gasses) out of the back really fast and this is what propels it forwards (or upwards) it doesn't need anything to 'push off'
@@CorwynGC Obviously not, because propellors don't work that way! However, a prop plane flying to the moon at 400 mph (typical max cruising speed) would take almost a month to get there, running its engines the whole time rather than just a few hours for a typical flight. That would take a lot more fuel than the plane normally carries.
@@RichWoods23 Thats an old term I haven't heard in a while. First read that in my teens from an old sci-fi book my dad had from the late 20's. By Air Express to Venus. by Roy Rockwood. cpy 1929
In 1920 Robert Goddard announced his plans for making a rocket to reach the Moon. The N Y Times criticized him in an editorial for his lack of high school science knowledge. “Everyone knows that a rocket needs atmosphere to push against.” In 1969 they issued a historic and rather red-faced apology to him since the Moon landing proved him right.
it annoys me so much when people make claims that can be disproven in less than 5 seconds. "can't burn without oxygen" bring oxygen with you. "nothing to push off of" bring something to push off of with you
As someone who’s a welder, I’m shocked that people don’t realize pressurized oxygen is a thing. In Oxy/Acetylene welding, we literally have a tank of oxygen and a tank of fuel gas. Why? Because the atmosphere isn’t pure enough to get the heat energy needed to melt steel with a small torch flame. Maybe if you had a compressor fueling the oxygen line, like a blast furnace, but it’s just easier to pressurize tanks of oxygen and release as much as you need. It’s like these people have never heard of an Oxidizer before. Most rockets, both solid and liquid fuel, have some kind of Oxidizer that’s either premixed, or mixed before ignition. It’s called an oxidizer because it contains oxygen, and reacts violently with fuels(hydrocarbons). Even things that are not oxygen, can release it when mixed with fuels at high temperatures.
@@Nikolai_The_CrazedOr Nitrous for cars. The whole reason nitro shots work for increasing power is that the Nitrous fuel itself contains so much oxygen. There are tones of places to encounter the idea of something supplying its own oxygen for combustion (technically deflagration for gasoline engines), but that kind of basic “I don’t already know how this works I should just ask someone who does” is too much of an ego blow for the people who get sucked into these kinds of grifts and scams.
@@FutureWorldX The irony is that you base your comment on your own beliefs and not something that has any evidence whatsoever. That is, the belief that flat earthers could calculate.
opened up a kids book from around 1950. "a rocket works due to an imbalance of pressure. assume 500LBs of pressure inside, with 15LBs air pressure outside... a 1 inch square hole is punched in the side of the tank. now there is an imbalance, 500lb-15lb, or 485LBs, acting upon one square inch, in one direction, with no counteracting force, the result being the rocket moves in the opposite direction to the hole. in a vacuum, performance improves, as there is no pressure at all, the full 500LBs is applied over the hole, and also there is no air resistance on the front of the rocket impeding its progress..." somewhere, at some point, the education system sadly failed.... this current civilisation reached its peak around about 1960, 1970, and its been a downhill slope ever since...
For hardcore flerfs, nothing you say will make a difference. they'll resort to name calling and throwing a tantrum instead of admitting they're wrong. like a narcissist.
Close. We Flatheads find one really GOOD lie that blows your entire production. But then you fall back on heresay. How far do you need to se across flat water to question the story?
This is like people who try to design ships with sails in front of fans. We already have boats that work with just the fan, you don't need a sail to make it work.
@@ActivelyVacant This reminds me of an actual grant proposal I reviewed. A small company wanted to use the power of the car engine to produce hydrogen and then burn it to augment the power of the engine. I'm not kidding.
A good observation, but it's often not just that. A common mistake is to start stepping just as the boat bounces back (when it's closest to land), rather than build speed first to cross the gap then. Having an even smaller boat, I drag myself onto the dock more than pushing off from the boat.
Let's imagine we put a live grenade inside a can that's open at one end and launched it all into the air just in time to witness an explosion. What answer would we expect from flat earther as to what would happen to the can? Would some of the grenade shrapnel not launch the can hgh into the air? Would the fragments that pushed inside the can at the closed end need the air to cause it to launch?
@@profphilbell2075 It really depends on the angle the can happened to be facing when the grenade went off, and the can's ability to resist the explosion and direct it out the end. My gut feeling is that the can would not resist the explosion at all, and so very little of the force woudl be directed out the open end of the can.
"In the balloon air molecules hitting the side keeps it inflated" **Several people are typing** ; "And no this does NOT demonstrate earth's atmosphere need a container" **several people have stopped typing**
That implies flerfs watch Dave's videos. They only watch reality-based content if they are called out by name. In that case they get a weird little masochistic ego boost and cannot stay away. Even then they just cry 'shill' overtop of Dave so they cannot hear the words!
@@angelainamarie9656 that moment when you realize that you cringe for ruining a joke and wish you had stopped typing because you completely made it unfunny
This title could turn into a career series: Flat Earthers misunderstand how rockets work Flat Earthers misunderstand how cameras work Flat Earthers misunderstand how photons work Flat Earthers misunderstand how reflections work Flat Earthers misunderstand how airplanes work Flat Earthers misunderstand how orbits work Flat Earthers misunderstand how planets work The list goes on forever probably.
@@qwerty_qwerty well, actually ... the real issue is that flat earthers REFUSE to work. that's why they remain forever ignorant. getting smart takes effort according to eisenstein: Knowledge = Effort x Time
Globers misunderstand how much stupidity people will go through to get views and likes. I'd wager more than half the flerfers we see don't believe their own drivel, but they get people who cannot resist commenting to boost their numbers and their payout. Once you accept that there is MONEY to be made by appearing stupid, it's pretty easy to understand why people would say the earth is flat.
One even thinks the Voyagers couldn't still be travelling because that would mean they are using petrol and where would they have been storing it all...
@@chrisantoniou4366 Obviously they just stop off at the intergalactic service station. But because of the inflation, it's now 20 galactic dollars per space gallon, so they have to travel a bit slower now to conserve fuel.
It's not really quaint. It's a commonly used word in physics education. And it's not just flerfs who have misconceptions about this. Practically everyone comes to physics with at least some physical misconceptions. You can see some on display in the comments here, leading to disagreements about how propulsion interacts with fluid bodies even among those who understand and accept the basic concept of reaction forces. Flerfs may be willfully ignorant, but coming to the table with misconceptions about fluids and propulsion is quite normal.
@@frantaspacek why do you seem familiar? How do you and the talking bread loaf take in new information? Also; you are still way too young for flat earth. I was 52 before I went flat, little one. You have years to frolic in the convex of earth.
@@cardboard9124 Hey there cheese dip. Yes I do have proof. Can you prove a curve yet? NASA cannot prove a curve, but you can? Awww. You're so smart. Little curve boy is fun.
Brave of you Dave to try and explain to them rocket science while knowing fully well that they can't grasp a ship dissappear bottom first over the horizon. Hats off
@@WCDavis-cl7si You guys keep pushing that same argument that's been disproven a million times (by anyone that's actually tried it). You're gonna have to come up with something way better, especially since the flerf crowd has never proven anything (mathematically) or shown any evidence that agrees with their assertions.
The thing is, flat Earthers DO grasp that a ship disappears bottom first over the horizon, but they need to make up all kinds of bullshit to "explain" it so that their flat Earth "model" stays intact.
Flat earthers gain new temporary converts all the time. For some of them it really is. Maybe not for the people *making* the memes, but for some percentage of the ones seeing them and thinking 'huh, never thought of that'.
Conspiratorial mindset + nuh-uh + denialism + Dunning Kruger + concocted flerfspective nonsense + Grifting/Conman Leaders + flaky Religious interpretations + lying + deception + intellectual dishonesty + Not understanding size, distance and scale + not understanding that quantitative science is a part of science + cognitive dissonance + thinking Rockets are Helicopters + thinking contrived manipulated cherry picked/taken out of context MEMES are evidence + willful ignorance +
When I was a kid and didn’t understand something, I asked or tried to learn. Those morons just assume there must be a conspiracy behind every thing they don’t udnerstand.
It's a variation of the victim mentality. They see themselves as victims of a conspiracy that kept the "truth" of Flat Earth from them. And they see themselves as "heroes" whose goal is to preach the "truth" to everyone else.
It's because the other possibility is that they were ignorant, and they know (because mama said) they are the smartest and wisest. So obviously when people say things they don't understand, it's just them pretending they know things.
I feel like the people who think rockets won't work in a vacuum are the same people who think planes can't take off from a conveyor belt. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of all the principles involved.
Serious question: how is a plane supposed to take off from a conveyor belt? It needs air speed for that, but on a belt it would stand still. Or am I missing something obvious here? Edit: question has been cleared. Thanks
Depends on how the conveyor belt question is phrased. One version had the belt moving back fast enough to counteract the lane moving forward. This would require the belt to move a Ludicrous Speed, so fast that the friction trying to drag the plane backwards through the wheels is so great that the engines can't overcome it, and the plane stays still. In which case it can't take off unless it is a Harrier or Osprey or something.
Mate, flat earthers dont even understand how solar clock sun dial works. They think that shadow's needle does full 24 hour rotation no matter where on the planet it is.
FE boils down to two types of arguments. There is the base, which is essentially "I don't trust the status quo. I only trust what my senses tell me (except when my senses tell me the world is a globe)." And there is damage control, where everything that disproves FE so easily that it must also have a system of denial built around it: gravity, space, refraction, perspective, math, evidence, reality.... In other words, everything except their ad hoc inventions and interpretations ─ which, by the way, all contradict each other.
Flat Earth is just what a cult looks like in 2024. We don't need to join a commune anymore to create the us against the world mentality that allows for people to truly adopt insane world views as their whole personality. Some guys are the Charlatans. They are knowingly selling the BS for fame/money/whatever. Than there are the people who know its BS but go along because its kind of fun to troll people on the internet. Back in day, cults, attracted a lot of women, one major difference between them and Flat Earth and if you have a lot of women, guys are going line up to join. Than there are the true believers who attach the entirety of their being to the cult and no amount of proof will ever satisfy them that they are wrong. They end up drinking flavor aid in Guyana. If it turned out 4 Flat Earthers died while performing some half cocked experiment for which the result could be easily predicted , would anyone be surprised?
The fact that Flat Earth can be easily disproved by stuff LITERALLY EVERY KID LEARNS by the 9th grade should tell you how "intellectual" Flat Earth really is. Heck, the concept of every action having an equal and opposite reaction is something I personally knew since I was in fourth grade. Absolute idiocy at work here.
Obviously the schools are in on it and teaching everyone wrong. That's why home schooling is so important for flerf kids.... Lol... Obviously I'm joking. As if flerfs could figure out breeding.
they don't believe in scients, its all made up by THEM. so in there mind every test you can make taht proofs something in a book, just proofs that the book is made up and doesn't show the reality...
When I was at school, how a rocket works was simplified to show (on a blackboard) four people inside a square box on the ground. Looking from above, you could see each person was pushing equally against the four sides so the box didn't move. If you opened one side of the box so one person could not push against it, the person on the opposite side who was still pushing now made the box move in the opposite direction. Very simple to understand. So, with a controlled explosion, which is what a rocket engine is, the hole is the outlet at the bottom, and the direction of travel is at the top because that is where the unopposed pressure within the rocket container is. As a kid it was such a simple concept that I've always remembered it.
Using people to model the push is a really helpful analogy for making it click what's actually happening. It can be hard to grasp "ball bouncing into a balloon over and over again pushes it away", especially when trying to imagine all of those bounces producing a perfectly still balloon. I think it's the one consistent push that makes the idea more clear. And then once the idea is understood by whoever you're teaching at that moment, you can get into the nitty gritty of how we know all those bounces equal out. Premise first, specifics second. Thank you for sharing this version of the analogy :D
And if you want more thrust, just put more people in the box. As the box moves away from the people that started it moving, just put more in. Keep putting more in as fast as you can and see how fast/ far the box moves. :)
It's still not at all an accurate way to try to approach educating about Newtonian action/reaction. Trying to say something about exhaust velocity versus exhaust mass, and trying to actually teach action/reaction would be better than that deceptive model of 4 people pushing outward.
I find it deeply amusing that flerfs screech about "atmosphere needs a container" constantly, but also somehow don't realize that rockets take containers of oxygen out of the atmosphere to run their engines. Come on, guys! You're the ones all about those containers in space, this time one really does exist and you don't know about it?
I think the argument they are trying to make there is that the earths atmosphere has to have a physical barrier to stay contained. They can't accept the fact that there is a vacuum above the pressurised air surrounding the Earth with nothing physical to block the air. It would seem as though they don't understand how gravity works.
Especially since the atmosphere doesnt have a container seperating it from the sea level pressure and lower pressures higher up. They see "an airliner needs to be pressurized!" but dont realize the REASON an airliner needs to be pressurized is because the outside pressure is lower... even better is when, if given the numbers for it, you realize the atmopshere would come no where close to filling up the dome, leaving most of the dome full of a VACUUM.
@LaikaLGagarin1957 : To be fair, the pressure of water near the surface of the ocean is equal the pressure of the air near the surfsce of the ocean (14.7 psi). So that particular point you made wouldn't work as a rebuttal to their claims.
I have had this 'discussion' with the anti-spacers and it turns out I'm an idiot for understanding how physics works, which is sort of necessary when you work for a major aero-engine manufacturer.
@@tristanridley1601 I am indeed in the conspiracy, and for the right amount of £££, I'll spill the beans*. *Beans may not be of the variety requested. No refunds.
How much do they pay you? I'm in the history conspiracy, and i feel we do not get paid enough to cover all the ancient aliens and advanced civilizations. How much do they pay you to say the Earth is round?
Warning: the person who "has questions" has made a habit of spamming irrelevant comments to many of Dave's videos, ignores the information they're given, and has a tendency to gish-gallop. If you start answering them, you should know what you're in for.
While a rocket is in the atmosphere, the atmosphere does push against the exhaust plume, changing it's shape. This is the reason why rocket engines that are optimized for a vacuum have larger nozzle bells. In an atmosphere, the pressure of the air confines the rocket plume a bit. Using the large bell of a vacuum optimized engine in the atmosphere is less efficient because the exhaust separates from the sides of the engine before it reaches the end of the nozzle. This doesn't mean that the exhaust bouncing off the atmosphere is propelling the rocket though; it just means that the atmosphere acts like a nozzle extension while it's there to push on the exhaust. Even if flat earthers aren't capable of understanding nuance, that doesn't mean the rest of us can't appreciate it.
Observing how the plume from a rocket engine changes shape as it gains altitude is a direct observation of the atmospheric pressure gradient, something else flerfs struggle with.
@@TheOz91 I think there are reasons its taken decades of research for aerospikes to not be widely adopted today. Weight, cooling, and combustion chamber complexity being the big issues. I spent a moment imagining a solid fuel aerospike booster with an ablative spike before imagining the spike getting launched out of the engine like a bullet as the hot exhaust gasses eat through the supporting material keeping it attached to the rocket. I wonder if that would be good for delta-v.
@@ktaylor9095 Yeah the cooling challenges are a big one even when we use the tech from the Space Shuttle Main Engines, which is one of the most efficient liquid rocket engines to ever be made. A solid rocket expendable booster rocket like that might be viable if the fuel is dense enough that it would keep working all the way to orbit. It's an intriguing design thought, indeed.
Also, for those without a rocket in space to test themselves: bullets are fired from a gun with the same concept. Gunpowder has its own oxidizer as it burns to accelerate a bullet down the barrel. There wouldn't be enough oxygen to do so in a sealed cartridge.
In high school, the guy giving the physics lectures argued that bullets couldn't be fired in outer space because there's no air for the gunpowder to burn in. I wouldn't insult actual teachers by calling him a teacher. Everyone in the class knew he was wrong and being an idiot but he stuck to his beliefs despite any attempt at logic. I wonder if he was a flerf?
@@TonyHammitt Ah yes, gunpowder, of which of course one of the ingredients is saltpeter, otherwise known as potassium nitrate, which is, all together now, an oxidiser :-)
@@KonradTheWizzard Orbital mechanics are usually Newtonian mechanics (unless you get too close to something big, in which case relativity starts mattering)
I will listen to the people who have proven that rockets can work, as opposed to the flatheads who insist it can't work in defiance of plenty of evidence it did and does work.
Yeah, the basis of science is take an observed fact and think up a model that explains it. Not think up a stupid model and then try and bend reality to make it work.
The ridiculous thing is that these days it's within reach for a small group or club to build their own rocket capable of reaching the vacuum of space. They could load it up with sensors, cameras and radios to gather any and all the data they want to know, beam it all back in real time, and have their very own data source, completely unmodified by the government or other conspirators. They'll probably just say the chips they bought from China were compromised, though, and designed to bend the data once it reaches a certain height.
My favourite way of explaining this to people that are starting to buy into flat earth is providing them with an experiment. Stand on a skateboard on flat ground, hold a bowling ball or a heavy rock, throw the rock behind you. You went forward because of Newton's third law. If they think the rock is pushing against the air, have them throw a piece of styrofoam instead with a similar volume. This way you can show them how a rocket engine works without explanations they might not yet be equipped to understand
Fact : Rocket engines actually work better in space, in a vacuum. Burn in a vacuum ? That's why they carry all than liquid oxygen or some other oxidizer. Normally, the exhaust from a rocket travels at supersonic speed. Meaning that it travels faster than any counter pressure can travel back to the rocket.
Not normally, always. (Re: the supersonic exhaust flow) That's what the throat is for, and therefore the expanding nozzle. Unless I am mistaken, (totally possible) aerospace vehicle rocket engines' exhaust is always > 1M. ?
@@MattH-wg7ou Not quite always. The rocket engines built by amateurs don't always manage to get that supersonic flow. Those tend to be few and far between, but, it can happen. Burn rate to low, throat to broad, and similar are to blame. IE. Bad design or implementation can prevent the supersonic flow.
I'm a bit confused, the video is supposed to educate flat eathers but in the comments I can't see a single one of these people. Everybody here seems to understand all of this already, so what's the point of the video?
Flat earthers don't comprehend that there is an entirety of physics. They just see isolated factoids. That is why they try to tackle them one by one and never all at once with a single model.
@@Alfred-Neuman what people should do is>find flat earth conspiracy videos, post there this video, and then MAYBE some of them will come to their senses xD :D
What it's so funny about the whole thing of not being able to push anything in a vacuum is that it's PRECISELY because of that that rocket engines are more efficient in a vacuum than in air. As you mentioned the gases leave the combustion chamber and get shot out of it through the throat but the nozzle is able to capture more thrust by taking advantage of the expanding gas as it leaves the throat. In a vacuum, this expansion is as efficient as it can get because there's no outside air to push it back or constrain it so the expansion of the gas is the optimal one and you get the most efficiency out of your engine. So rocket engines not only can work in a vacuum, they're the most efficient in a vacuum lol
Air compressed in a container would have equal pressure in all areas at once. Have flat earthers ever presented an ""explanation"" for why atmospheric pressure at higher altitudes is lower than that at ground level?
Of course not...every time they get asked to explain the pressure gradient we have in our atmosphere you either get denial or you hear rapid footsteps from them pancakia cult members running away, followed by tumbleweed rolling by and crickets chirping...
They like to say that "Gas pressure requires a container" ... without first demonstrating/proving the container you cannot prove gas pressure exists. It doesn't work the other way around.
I've heard them try to give two excuses, both bad. 1. Gases are produced at ground level, that's why pressure is greater closer to ground. 2. There is a natural order based on density. Don't ask me to defend these things. I only know what the flerfs have said.
The problem is that they don't understand the definition of "pressurized". It DOES NOT mean "having pressure". It means "artificially raised or maintaining pressure of a fluid IN A CONTAINER" Air only being pressurized in a container isn't because it's impossible to have or increase pressure outside of a container, but because that just isn't what the word means!
I worked out how rockets work when I was 5 years old. I even made my own at the time with a bottle, an air valve from a bike, a bike pump and some water. A party balloon substitutes too.
@@CheapDayReturn Hey rocketboy. We see the same stars every night for 365 days a year. That's why we ain't moving. Now Go "pew pew pew" wif yo little rockets.
@@WCDavis-cl7si That's where you're wrong. Which stars we see depends on the time of the year and wheher or not you are in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. So, if you truly believe that what you say is true, and the stars are the same around the world and all year, observe the night sky over a year and travel to the other hemisphere to see if I'm right, and change your belief so it accords with the facts!
I read my first grown up science fiction novel when I was ten. I had the same question about what rockets pushed off in a vacuum. I was able to find the correct answer before home computers and Internet access were available. It is mind blowing that an adult can’t do this with Internet access. I also find it irksome that I had to use “grown up” in my first sentence because the porn industry has changed the connotations of the word “adult”.
These people are willfully ignorant. They have no desire to actually research the topic. It’s convenient to their worldview to ignorantly assert that rockets can’t work in a vacuum.
I often hear that Newton's 3rd law doesn't count or that Newton was just wrong. The fact that other physicists have accepted Newton's 3rd law doesn't matter to them. They are completely unresponsive to reason.
Even Jet Engines dont push against the atmosphere -.- They just push gas away from themselves. Yes, its compressed air that they take in, but the motion comes from the gas blown out the back.
Fun fact: The same flerfers that think that rockets can't go into the exosphere because you need to "push off of air molecules" think that planes could magically go up into space without exerting extreme forces that would probably destroy the engines.
I have a simple demonstration for anybody doubting that rockets push on their reaction mass rather than the air. Sit on a wheeled roller chair on a smooth hard floor with a bowling ball and a similar sized ball of air (a balloon). One at a time push them horizontally away from yourself as hard as you can - which one makes you and the chair roll the other way?
That wouldn't actually prove it, only demonstrate it, which is not the same thing. The simplest debunk is that if the rocket exhaust is moving away from the rocket at a certain speed, how can the exhaust "above" it (now leaving the nozzle) push against it if it is moving away at the same speed .. the rocket would stay in the same place shortly after ignition and acceleration would be impossible. Therefore it cannot be pushing against it.
@@Kyrelel your explanation is probably too complicated for a flerfer to think about, hell I think getting dressed must be challenge for a flerfer! My demo is more about the fact that the balloon and the bowling ball are bothr pushing air out of the way when you thrust them away but only the bowling ball provides noticeable thrust back so proving that pushing on the air is not the source of the thrust
Nitromethane drag racing cars provide their own oxygen, so that's another unexpected thing that doesn't work on a flat earth. They actually throw that much fuel in them that they are in danger of hydro locking, which is where the volume of liquid in the cylinder is greater than the Compressed volume of the cylinder. I'm not sure if they would work in a vacuum though!
Yes. I did a bit of attempted education on the "pushing off of something" misconception on a FaceBook thread a while back. What I found didn't surprise me, but it is annoying: Every single one of the folks that posted the "pushing off something" fallacy were completely uninterested in engaging in understanding and responding in good faith to anything which contradicted what they already believed. I continued only because I thought there might be people listening in to the conversation that hadn't already made up their mind and consequently would engage the information in good faith. You did a great job of explaining how rocket engines actually work and the problems with believing that thrust is simply pushing off something else. Thanks.
The exhaust pushes off the rocket, which causes the rocket to move. Or rather, what will become the exhaust, since it's not considered exhaust until it pushes off. :p
@@K_End Agreed. I'd have to say that it's part of what makes conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists. It's not just the combination of confirmation bias and unequal standards of proof. They're driven by ideology first and foremost. The way they handle data is just a means to the end of advancing the ideology.
This is the whole objective for countering flerf nonsense: not to convince any flerfs (because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't come to through reason) but to try to stop other people from falling down the same rabbit hole.
Flerfs are idiots, but in all honesty, I've run into regular folks who have the same misconception. The best demonstration would be to take a small light volleyball while sitting on a chair with rollers and push the ball quickly forward. You won't move much. Then do it with a bowling ball of the same size. You'll move a lot more. The two balls pushed against the same amount of air, yet you didn't move the same. (Tossing them the same distance would work too but would do a number on your floor.)
Careful, this is easy for people to misunderstand. I saw someone using this exact analogy to prove the opposite, by showing that pushing against a bowling ball caused him to move backwards, but pushing against empty air didn't. What he didn't realize of course was that it DID move him, just such a tiny amount that he didn't notice. So you have to find ways to make your analogies for these things dodge the misconception of "the force is so tiny it can't be noticed with the naked eye". Personally I think if he'd done the same test on a skateboard, he might have perhaps noticed his mistake. One can hope, at least.
@@riluna3695 LOL isn't that like their typical thing of trying to have it both ways? They say that the rocket pushes against air to move, but his pushing against air doesn't make him move?
@@civwar64bob77 Pretty much. Their answers to questions are basically always the lowest-effort conclusions that can be drawn from the "some guy in the elevator just described the vague concept of physics" understanding they have of a given topic. You can usually trace their mistakes and misconceptions back to the most basic overview of a topic, like how "survival of the fittest" is assumed to be an animal-versus-animal tournament because that's what the name sounds like. Really the only time they dig deep on a topic is when the barebones easy understanding threatens a belief they like. And once THAT happens, they will dig EXACTLY as deep as they need to, no matter how shallow or how far, until they find something that lets them keep on believing what they wanted to, irrespective of if they understood it properly. This is how normal people behave. We're the weird ones.
The difference is that "regular folks" will understand how rockets really work once you explain it to them. Flat Earthers have a vested interest in believing otherwise - if they admit that rockets work in a vacuum, they would then have to explain how every photo taken from space shows the Earth to be a globe.
I was taught this primary school at around 9 years old and no one in the class had any difficulty understanding it. Education seems to have gone backwards.
In another words, the greater back pressure there is the less efficiently a rocket or a jet engine works. This can be demonstrated with a water hose. When the tap is open the water sprays out at the end of the hose, thus generating thrust. But if you put the end of the hose under water the thrust is notably smaller compared to the situation when the end of the hose is in the air. This is because the back pressure is greater in water. There is virtually no back pressure in space and it is the reason why a rocket engine works most efficiently there.
Being ignorant about a subject is ok, not everyone knows it all. The bad thing is when an ignorant claims something is true or false based on their beliefs or feelings and no evidence whatsoever.
Ignorance is fine. Ignorance can be corrected and removed by, well, learning about it. *proud* Ignorance is not fine. Being proudly ignorant and refusing to learn about what you're ignorant of becomes stupidity. Stupidity cannot be corrected and learned until it turns into normal Ignorance. But that means crushing ones pride. Because it comes from being proud of your ignorance.
I think it's important to differentiate jet propulsion from screw propellors. Without illustrating that a jet engine doesn't work like a helicopter propellor, there's a misconception being left on the table. The blades of a jet engine don't just push air through, they compress it to become a better oxidiser.
And generate additional gasses through combustion. The purpose of a jet engine is to generate a high-speed inertial mass that is directed in the opposite direction from the intended thrust.
"Rockets don't work in the vacuum." I mean, they're DESIGNED to work in the vacuum. The engineers thought of that when they designed them (they also work in the atmosphere, but you get the point).
I’ve always explained it to them like a rocket is a gun. The recoil of a gun doesn’t come from the bullet hitting the air, it comes from the bullet travelling toward the target. The rocket exhaust is the bullet that provides recoil (thrust) to the gun (rocket)
@@a-nus lol. Dave Weiss is a scammer who got wrecked by Dave Farina. Eric Dubay is a scammer who got wrecked by Dave Farina. Both of them are just scammers lying to people for money.
Awwwww. it looks like TheLastChapter2023 had to delete his entire thread and run away. I guess the mean man on the internet hurt his feel parts by stating "Facts". I think he was touched somewhere inappropriately by a textbook once, and now he is afraid of them.
15 NASA Declassified Research Papers That Admit Flat & Stationary Nonrotating Earth ! Updated: Jun 23, 2019 1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating. Produced in August 1988, the publication details obscure concepts such as "Rotational Acceleration" and "Earth-Relative Velocity. " Or to a layman, how planes lift off, fly over, and land upon the Earth. Immediately following the cover page and index on the very first line under Summary we nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88 104main_H-1391.pdf And below are 14 more Aeronautic Papers and Technical Memorandums that say the same: 2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section ll) ... "In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat 33withthest/ TikTok @withthesun33 Back Up TikTok
The answer is, in a weird kinda way, the rocket exhaust pushes off the rocket itself. The exhaust is trying to expand, but the walls of the nozzle prevent it from spreading. So it slams into the walls of the rocket motor, giving it a little push, and then flies out the end of the bell. That’s not including the gas molecules slamming into each other, before some slams into combustion chamber walls. Those molecules pick up more energy from being hit by their neighbors, and then hit the combustion chamber. There’s a limit to how much energy is transferred with each interaction though, no transfer of energy can truly be 100% efficient. So only a small fraction of the energy is compounded as the gas interacts with itself. But the fact remains, with billions and trillions of these molecules interacting with the spacecraft every fraction of a second, it provides a decent forward thrust.
Flat earthers deny rockets because it is a path to denying every result based on rocket science including NASA's pictures of death as a globe. It is possible to accuse NASA of being a conspiracy even if rockets do work, and if you are successful at proving that rockets work, you are still about 10 layers of obstinacy way from convincing them.
@@WCDavis-cl7si your lack of belief in a globe doesn't make it not so. Please state what you do believe and provide evidence for it. Do you believe that rockets can't work in a vacuum, or that there is no vacuum of space, or that all reports of space travel and its associated data are false? Or are you going to play the A-globist card: you're just not convinced that the earth is a globe? Perhaps you think this means you have no burden of proof, but you would be wrong. Even if you are unconvinced about the shape of the earth at all (I assume you do believe that it has a shape) there are basically only two choices: flat or curved. So to be fundamentally unconvinced about the shape of the earth is to be unable to decide between these two. Yet I can prove (and I do mean prove) that there is a fundamental, irreconcilable difference between these two answers for the shape of the earth. And then point to a totality of evidence that is consistent with this difference in the case of a curved earth, and zero evidence in favour of a flat one (and I do mean zero). So, after seeing that, anyone who remains "unconvinced" has the burden of proof to demonstrate why it is reasonable for them to continue to insist on holding that position.
Thank you for not just saying "conservation of momentum" like so many do, and actually explaining that there's a force on the inside of the combustion chamber pushing the rocket. Too many explanations just say "exhaust goes this way so the rocket has to go that way to conserve momentum", as if conservation of momentum is a cause of anything rather than a description after the fact.
Yes indeed. Conservation of momentum can be explained as a consequence of Newton's third law. However, in an explanation, saying conservation of momentum glosses over where the thrust, another name for "rocket force", comes from. Folks who do physics for a living understand the issue, but it may not be the best way to explain things on TH-cam, particularly when some of the listeners are skeptics.
I don’t think your characterization is fair. Conservation of momentum reflects the same underlying phenomenon, just looked at from a different perspective. It is not any less valid of a way to explain what is happening.
@@phunkydroid I disagree. It explains things, just at a higher level of abstraction-it is a summary of what’s happening. I agree you can get more information by digging to a more granular explanation. But that doesn’t invalidate the more abstract explanation. The explanation in terms of gas expanding and pushing against the rocket is itself an abstraction-you could go deeper still to discuss the intermolecular interactions between the gas and the solid rocket engine, discussing how they don’t actually “touch” but rather interact via electromagnetic force (and to a lesser extent other forces) as they come near each other, or even more granular and discuss quantum interactions therebetween. Hell, describing the gas molecules as particles is itself an abstraction. Just because a more granular explanation exists does not make the more abstract explanation invalid. One may be more useful than the other in a given context, that I agree with. But it’s not always the more granular. For example, sometimes it’s better to describe what’s going on with a ballon in terms of pressure (an abstract summary of more granular interactions) while other times it might make more sense to describe the velocities of billions of molecules in the ballon and their collisions with the walls of the balloon. You would not say the pressure explanation does not “actually” explain things just because it’s more abstract.
@@phunkydroid what’s more, I challenge the notion that describing the gas as “pushing” against the rocket is somehow more explanatory and less of a summary. As I am sure you know, the explanation for why the gas molecules transfer force to the rocket when they collide with comes down to the changes in momentum of the molecules pre- and and post- collision. The amount and direction of force is determine by the momentum. Indeed, how do you even separate force from momentum? Force is, fundamentally, a change in momentum, and vice versa. It’s two ways of looking at or explaining the same underlying phenomena.
I remember being a kid and wondering about how helicopters stay up at high altitude, because I’d assumed they were held up by a kind of solid pillar of fast air - in effect a piece of air had to travel as a continuous thing, from the rotor to the ground, to support the craft. It’s interesting that as a child I was one step less silly than the people who think that the air then has to bounce all the way back up again.
short summary: Rockets don't need atmospheric oxygen to operate in space because they carry their own oxidizers onboard. This allows them to burn fuel and generate thrust even in the vacuum of space, where there is no external oxygen. This capability has been proven through numerous successful space missions.
Thinking rockets propel themselves by pushing themselves off of the ground, is how a young child would perceive physics and tries to explain it with its limited knowledge; "I need to push against something to force my body to go the other way. Rockets must work the same then." Many people never grow up beyond the level of children, though, and as such will continue to think this is how rockets actually work. It's not their fault at all either, it's how things work. Some people are capable of having more knowledge (and can apply that knowledge) than others. The worrying bit is that flat-earthers - while a lot of them don't believe anything they say themselves either, if you ask me - (ab)use this and have people question science in every aspect all together.. The only thing a flerf needs to do is imagine how a child would see things and ask questions accordingly... It's really that simple and I bet you they have a lot of fun doing it otherwise it would have stopped long ago. It wouldn't be a lot of fun acting like a child if everyone would treat you like one and ignore your questions because that's what grown-ups do with questions they deem too difficult for children.... "It's like that because it is. You'll learn when you grow up and do your best in school..." Essentially, trying to debunk flerfs is fueling their flerfiness... But it makes for great videos from Dave from which I regularly pick something up myself!
Nicely done. Another point is about the pressure inside the combustion chamber. Some flat-earthers claim that with the big 'hole' in the chamber that leads out the bottom through the nozzle, any pressure should 'instantly' expand out the hole and so you can't have any pressure build up inside the chamber. But the exhaust molecules have mass and it takes TIME to build up velocity and accelerate them out the nozzle. Not very much time grant you, but it does take several milliseconds. And the thing with those liquid fueled rockets is, those pumps are pumping fuel/ oxidizer INTO the chamber at phenomenal rates. The F-1 engines of saturn V pumped more than 5 TONS of fuel/ oxidizer every SECOND. Essentially 'keeping' the combustion chamber full by replacing the combustion gasses just as fast as they leave. So combustion chamber pressure is maintained dynamically by constantly replacing the matter that is shooting out the nozzle. (one bit of trivia I remember about the Saturn V, they start the main engines in a sequence and run them up to full thrust before releasing the rocket. While sitting there from T minus 5 to T minus zero, they burn through about 70 TONS of fuel. Think of it, that's 70 tonsburned off before they even release the hold-down clamps!!! )
I literally asked my friend this once... he literally does work on aircraft, but having it explained once about mass/matter displacement did it for me. They don't want to understand. EDIT: I asked in my 20s because I was at the gym with him. He also explained why 4 rotors on a full sized helicopter would be less efficient and that's why we don't have huge drones like in Avatar (James Camron, not the perfect tv show) I literally tried to pitch a 4 rotor chopper to an aerial engineer. I listened though, makes sense. (the equivalent of surface area but with air pressure and less interference between the rotors)... he said it in like 2 sentences, I'm ranting about unrelated things in youtube comments.
@@alwaysinquisitive9898 Flat earthers don't believe in satellites or orbital mechanics. They believe they are a trick, and that the government places false lights in our sky to make them appear to be visible.
@@alwaysinquisitive9898 most of them are powered with solar energy, they do not need a fuel, also many of them are controlled from Earth also by electrical engine which can receive signal from Earth control center. Do you think people at NASA and in other science stations are there just to sit and drink coffee and watch TV shows !?
2:46 the oxidizer in TNT is the nitrogen - the oxygen atoms already have 2 extra electrons from the nitrogen in the nitro group. the Nitrogen on the other hand is oxidized to +5 - it has given up 5 electrons and would very much like some back. this is also the reason nitric acid works so good as an oxidizer. when mixed with sulfuric acid it can oxidize even gold
I don't know how you do it without being patronizing. This is introductory high school physics. You have the patience of the saint, though the AdSense and sponsorship money do help.
Twice he has tried and failed to explain why we can't go back to the moon. So I will do it for you: WE WUZ SO MUCH SMARTER IN THE 1960'S Y'ALL. WE WUZ MOON-DROPPING FLAGS AND FLARES UP THERE WHILE 4 OUT OF 5 DOCTORS SMOKED KENT CIGARETTES DOWN HERE. If you believe we could do something 60 years ago, but cannot now; dumb.
@@WCDavis-cl7si That's at least three times you've posted that dumb comment, and nobody could be bothered to respond. So lad, which map did you decide works for the flat earth, and why can't any of you larpers agree on it?
You are not quite correct with B.: Newtons Law requires something to push against but in the case of a rocket the something is it's own burning/burnt fuel
@@kaksspl But I am technically correct which is the best kind of correct, especially when talking about rockets! I would say I was being pedantic rather than arguing semantics, semantics being the study of meaning and the meaning of Scott's words being technically wrong. There I am being pedantic again! 🤣🤣. p.s. I don't understand "anything environmental"? But, yes, I'm happy, thanks. Hope you are too!
@@chrisglen-smith7662 I think by "anything environmental" they mean "anything outside of the rocket", and it's a clarification of the "anything" in the original comment.
@@chrisglen-smith7662 I would argue that it's actually pushing against the pressure plate (or the combustion chamber directly opposite the throat , which is the only part of the combustion that doesn't have an equal opposite force balancing it to zero (much like a car axle is supported by the part of the tire opposite that contracting the ground (hoop stress)). Free-body diagram. Technically correcter?
I am 61.I understood the rocket principle at the age of 8. Before ever having a single physics lesson. To become an 'adult' without ever mastering a concept that simple shows a mind boggling determination to be ignorant. 🙄🙈🙉
To be honest, we (I'm 63) had the advantage of not having social media when we were young and we used to read books, which requires some intellectual effort, unlike watching TikTok memes.
@@betaorionis2164 misinformation spreads life fire in the internet so do useful ideas reading books is a really good thing though you can usually learn with books much more better there is also auido books which I really like because you can listen to them while reading a book which really helps with reading it!
@@betaorionis2164 technology could still be used in a good way though, i learned the trajectory rockets make in order to reach other celestial bodies (low earth orbit, transfer window, etc.) at 10 from a video game
I applaud your composure. I would have a hard time keeping it together with "arguments" this ignorant. Fire needs oxygen to burn? Yes, have you noticed this big tank labelled "OXYGEN" taking up more than half the volume of the rocket?
The fact that I was able to debunk both questions just by seeing the thumbnail tells you all you need to know about the extent of flat earthers knowledge of basic physics
The annoying thing about those guys is that you just can't argue with them. They spew their BS in your direction and when you come with actual information they will just either counter with more BS or say that your stuff is fake. "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."
A good analogy is that it's easier to beat a grand master at chess than it is beating a pigeon, because the grand master won't knock all the pieces out and shit on the board
The argument that rockets need something to push against is such a silly one. If it were true, then any rocket taking off would begin slowing down the further it got from the ground.
Another way to visualize it: If you're floating in space standing on a table, and you jump off, the table gets pushed down and you get pushed up. The fuel is the table, the jumping is the combustion, and the rocket moves because it keeps producing tables to "jump" off.
Seems that the propulsion is the easiest issue to get over. Mix fuel and oxidizer make go boom. The hard part is making go boom safely and in a controlled manner.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Enjoy 😢 Jesus energy wash
As a Mid-Westerner, I appreciate that you called them, Pop bottle rockets.
Flat Earth For Life!
does day have an imaginary magical friend? Seems like he does!
@@anonjoe8183 cool, so you'll join Dave McKeegan for The Final Experiment?
The funny thing is that atmospheric pressure actually makes rocket engines *less efficient* because the exhaust has to push all that air out of the way in order to expand.
And air friction causes drag.
They don't understand that it's Newtons third law which says every action has an equal and opposite reaction so it's throwing stuff (hot gasses) out of the back really fast and this is what propels it forwards (or upwards) it doesn't need anything to 'push off'
@@iitzfizzExactly. The rocket is literally pushing off of the exhaust molecules it’s tossing overboard.
Lol. Of course you watch this channel too! 😊
@@iitzfizz If one is on a rolling chair and pushes a bowling ball away, do flatties think the resulting motion of the chair is due to wind resistance?
if space didn't exist, rockets could use propellors, and be much cheaper.
Ether propellors!
Not necessarily. They would still have to carry fuel, and over the distances we use rockets for, that would be a LOT of fuel!
@@ceejay0137 But they DON'T have to carry reaction mass.
@@CorwynGC Obviously not, because propellors don't work that way! However, a prop plane flying to the moon at 400 mph (typical max cruising speed) would take almost a month to get there, running its engines the whole time rather than just a few hours for a typical flight. That would take a lot more fuel than the plane normally carries.
@@RichWoods23 Thats an old term I haven't heard in a while. First read that in my teens from an old sci-fi book my dad had from the late 20's. By Air Express to Venus. by Roy Rockwood. cpy 1929
In 1920 Robert Goddard announced his plans for making a rocket to reach the Moon. The N Y Times criticized him in an editorial for his lack of high school science knowledge. “Everyone knows that a rocket needs atmosphere to push against.” In 1969 they issued a historic and rather red-faced apology to him since the Moon landing proved him right.
A bit late weren't they as Apollo 10 made it the moon and orbited but didn't land before returning home.
In 1920 that ignorance and lack of science education was a lot more excusable.
@@PeteOtton and my favorite Apollo mission, Apollo 8. 🙂
@@tristanridley1601 Wow!! People say the most self unaware things out loud sometimes!!!!
It took them till 1969 to realize how absolutely stupid they were?😂😂‼️
it annoys me so much when people make claims that can be disproven in less than 5 seconds.
"can't burn without oxygen" bring oxygen with you.
"nothing to push off of" bring something to push off of with you
Exactly. The rocket pushes off the engine which is pushing off the burning and expanding fuel. It couldn't be simpler.
As someone who’s a welder, I’m shocked that people don’t realize pressurized oxygen is a thing. In Oxy/Acetylene welding, we literally have a tank of oxygen and a tank of fuel gas. Why? Because the atmosphere isn’t pure enough to get the heat energy needed to melt steel with a small torch flame. Maybe if you had a compressor fueling the oxygen line, like a blast furnace, but it’s just easier to pressurize tanks of oxygen and release as much as you need.
It’s like these people have never heard of an Oxidizer before. Most rockets, both solid and liquid fuel, have some kind of Oxidizer that’s either premixed, or mixed before ignition. It’s called an oxidizer because it contains oxygen, and reacts violently with fuels(hydrocarbons). Even things that are not oxygen, can release it when mixed with fuels at high temperatures.
@@Nikolai_The_Crazed an even simpler example: scuba tanks
@@Nikolai_The_CrazedOr Nitrous for cars. The whole reason nitro shots work for increasing power is that the Nitrous fuel itself contains so much oxygen.
There are tones of places to encounter the idea of something supplying its own oxygen for combustion (technically deflagration for gasoline engines), but that kind of basic “I don’t already know how this works I should just ask someone who does” is too much of an ego blow for the people who get sucked into these kinds of grifts and scams.
Go on an office chair or a skate board and throw out something heavy, you'll move in the other direction. This is literally how rockets work.
08:05 if the combustion chamber was sealed, me thinks the combustion chamber might encounter a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
aka it would go kaboom. a sealed combustion chamber is just a bomb.
@@everybodyants badaboom, BiG BaDAboOm
@@kernicterus1233 In a cab, no less!
like if the o rings had a leak
@@kernicterus1233 Leeloo, is that you? :D
"Flat Earthers Misunderstand ________" is an evergreen topic.
Inb4 flat earthers try to debunk the concept of "evergreen" without understanding it 😝😂
And it's virtually all encompassing. I'm not even certain they understand basic arithmetic.
Didn’t learn Newton’s 1st 2nd & 3rd laws in school, fairly essential if you want your ludicrous beliefs to have some small basis on reality
@@RustyDust101 flerfs might take the Terrence Howard strategy of making up numbers and calculations to match their beliefs.
@@FutureWorldX The irony is that you base your comment on your own beliefs and not something that has any evidence whatsoever. That is, the belief that flat earthers could calculate.
If only flat earthers spent even half the effort googling the answer as they did making misinformed memes.
Flerfs would then say Google answers are fake and manipulated.
Unfortunately, that will never happen.
They're not interested in answers though
as a former "conspiracy crackpot" myself, all I can say is: you are satisfied with already you got, no need to search UNLESS it confirms your delusion
@@FlagAnthem good old conformation bias
opened up a kids book from around 1950.
"a rocket works due to an imbalance of pressure. assume 500LBs of pressure inside, with 15LBs air pressure outside... a 1 inch square hole is punched in the side of the tank. now there is an imbalance, 500lb-15lb, or 485LBs, acting upon one square inch, in one direction, with no counteracting force, the result being the rocket moves in the opposite direction to the hole. in a vacuum, performance improves, as there is no pressure at all, the full 500LBs is applied over the hole, and also there is no air resistance on the front of the rocket impeding its progress..."
somewhere, at some point, the education system sadly failed....
this current civilisation reached its peak around about 1960, 1970, and its been a downhill slope ever since...
For hardcore flerfs, nothing you say will make a difference. they'll resort to name calling and throwing a tantrum instead of admitting they're wrong. like a narcissist.
Narcissist is certainly one of the fundamental types of flerfer.
OMG You have just described a maga trumpet.
When flat earthers say "I'd listen to you carefully if you stop with the insults", we have our counterexamples
Close. We Flatheads find one really GOOD lie that blows your entire production. But then you fall back on heresay. How far do you need to se across flat water to question the story?
@@WCDavis-cl7si Which map you going to use to navigate that 'flat' water clown shoes?
People who do not have a clue about physics try to preach about physics. What can go wrong?
Every thing?
Dunning-Kruger
Thank you for pointing that out… This guy clearly doesn’t have a clue 😂
This is like people who try to design ships with sails in front of fans. We already have boats that work with just the fan, you don't need a sail to make it work.
@@ActivelyVacant This reminds me of an actual grant proposal I reviewed. A small company wanted to use the power of the car engine to produce hydrogen and then burn it to augment the power of the engine. I'm not kidding.
Newton's 3rd law of motion is not particularly intuitive, which is why some people end up in the water when stepping ashore from a small boat.
A good observation, but it's often not just that. A common mistake is to start stepping just as the boat bounces back (when it's closest to land), rather than build speed first to cross the gap then. Having an even smaller boat, I drag myself onto the dock more than pushing off from the boat.
The golden rule, never divide your centre of gravity between the boat and the bank.
Let's imagine we put a live grenade inside a can that's open at one end and launched it all into the air just in time to witness an explosion. What answer would we expect from flat earther as to what would happen to the can? Would some of the grenade shrapnel not launch the can hgh into the air? Would the fragments that pushed inside the can at the closed end need the air to cause it to launch?
@@grahvis Another golden rule - never divide your life savings between a boat and a bank.
@@profphilbell2075 It really depends on the angle the can happened to be facing when the grenade went off, and the can's ability to resist the explosion and direct it out the end. My gut feeling is that the can would not resist the explosion at all, and so very little of the force woudl be directed out the open end of the can.
"In the balloon air molecules hitting the side keeps it inflated" **Several people are typing** ; "And no this does NOT demonstrate earth's atmosphere need a container" **several people have stopped typing**
That implies flerfs watch Dave's videos. They only watch reality-based content if they are called out by name. In that case they get a weird little masochistic ego boost and cannot stay away. Even then they just cry 'shill' overtop of Dave so they cannot hear the words!
People who live over a mile above sea level understand the concept of a pressure gradient and continue typing.
@@angelainamarie9656 that moment when you realize that you cringe for ruining a joke and wish you had stopped typing because you completely made it unfunny
This title could turn into a career series:
Flat Earthers misunderstand how rockets work
Flat Earthers misunderstand how cameras work
Flat Earthers misunderstand how photons work
Flat Earthers misunderstand how reflections work
Flat Earthers misunderstand how airplanes work
Flat Earthers misunderstand how orbits work
Flat Earthers misunderstand how planets work
The list goes on forever probably.
Flat Earthers misunderstand how Flat Earthers work
@@qwerty_qwerty well, actually ...
the real issue is that flat earthers REFUSE to work.
that's why they remain forever ignorant. getting smart takes effort
according to eisenstein: Knowledge = Effort x Time
flat erthers misunderstand how the sun work
Globers misunderstand how much stupidity people will go through to get views and likes. I'd wager more than half the flerfers we see don't believe their own drivel, but they get people who cannot resist commenting to boost their numbers and their payout.
Once you accept that there is MONEY to be made by appearing stupid, it's pretty easy to understand why people would say the earth is flat.
Nothing goes on forever except the echoes boucing back in Flerfer's skulls.
I can sort of understand a flerf not understanding Newton's law, but not knowing that rockets carry their own oxygen?
Maybe they didn't realize it because they can't see any SCUBA tanks on the boosters? 😄
It's the ignorant confidence typical of the entry-level hoax believers.
first rule of the successful con: filter your audience
One even thinks the Voyagers couldn't still be travelling because that would mean they are using petrol and where would they have been storing it all...
@@chrisantoniou4366
Obviously they just stop off at the intergalactic service station. But because of the inflation, it's now 20 galactic dollars per space gallon, so they have to travel a bit slower now to conserve fuel.
"Misconception" is such a kind, quaint word in this instance.
“This ovary is flat!”
It's not really quaint. It's a commonly used word in physics education. And it's not just flerfs who have misconceptions about this. Practically everyone comes to physics with at least some physical misconceptions. You can see some on display in the comments here, leading to disagreements about how propulsion interacts with fluid bodies even among those who understand and accept the basic concept of reaction forces. Flerfs may be willfully ignorant, but coming to the table with misconceptions about fluids and propulsion is quite normal.
Peculiarly apt given just how many flat Earthers were misconceived... 😂
@@chrisantoniou4366 Ooooh, that's a good one.
Not all barriers are physical. Just look at the one stopping flat earthers from taking in information.
To be fair, they're so dense that it does border on physical
@@frantaspacek😂😂😂
@@frantaspacek why do you seem familiar? How do you and the talking bread loaf take in new information? Also; you are still way too young for flat earth. I was 52 before I went flat, little one. You have years to frolic in the convex of earth.
@@WCDavis-cl7si got any proof for the earth being flat?
@@cardboard9124 Hey there cheese dip. Yes I do have proof. Can you prove a curve yet? NASA cannot prove a curve, but you can? Awww. You're so smart. Little curve boy is fun.
Brave of you Dave to try and explain to them rocket science while knowing fully well that they can't grasp a ship dissappear bottom first over the horizon. Hats off
Just wait until you discover binoculars; stuff is going to change.
@@WCDavis-cl7si You guys keep pushing that same argument that's been disproven a million times (by anyone that's actually tried it). You're gonna have to come up with something way better, especially since the flerf crowd has never proven anything (mathematically) or shown any evidence that agrees with their assertions.
@@WCDavis-cl7si how will binoculars change anything?
The thing is, flat Earthers DO grasp that a ship disappears bottom first over the horizon, but they need to make up all kinds of bullshit to "explain" it so that their flat Earth "model" stays intact.
They can't even grasp the idea of a horizontal rod across from the top of the flagpole holding the flag up...
You are so kind calling it a “misconception”.
Flat earthers gain new temporary converts all the time. For some of them it really is. Maybe not for the people *making* the memes, but for some percentage of the ones seeing them and thinking 'huh, never thought of that'.
At this point its willful ignorance
That’s exactly what it is.
🔫🧑🚀
Always has been
Conspiratorial mindset + nuh-uh + denialism + Dunning Kruger + concocted flerfspective nonsense + Grifting/Conman Leaders + flaky Religious interpretations + lying + deception + intellectual dishonesty + Not understanding size, distance and scale + not understanding that quantitative science is a part of science + cognitive dissonance + thinking Rockets are Helicopters + thinking contrived manipulated cherry picked/taken out of context MEMES are evidence + willful ignorance +
I think it's a deliberate attempt to dumb down as many as possible.
When a man's income depends on them not understanding something, they're very motivated not to understand it.
When I was a kid and didn’t understand something, I asked or tried to learn. Those morons just assume there must be a conspiracy behind every thing they don’t udnerstand.
You kind of imply you don't ask or try to learn when you don't understand something now. I'm guessing you don't mean to do that?
@@super0nofa Haha no, I wanted to imply that even as a child I acted more reasonably than those people.
It's a variation of the victim mentality. They see themselves as victims of a conspiracy that kept the "truth" of Flat Earth from them. And they see themselves as "heroes" whose goal is to preach the "truth" to everyone else.
It's because the other possibility is that they were ignorant, and they know (because mama said) they are the smartest and wisest. So obviously when people say things they don't understand, it's just them pretending they know things.
I feel like the people who think rockets won't work in a vacuum are the same people who think planes can't take off from a conveyor belt. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of all the principles involved.
Remember, the people who say rockets can't fly in space also say airplanes would if you'd let them.
Understanding rocket science ... it's not rocket science is it?!
Serious question: how is a plane supposed to take off from a conveyor belt? It needs air speed for that, but on a belt it would stand still. Or am I missing something obvious here?
Edit: question has been cleared. Thanks
Depends on how the conveyor belt question is phrased. One version had the belt moving back fast enough to counteract the lane moving forward. This would require the belt to move a Ludicrous Speed, so fast that the friction trying to drag the plane backwards through the wheels is so great that the engines can't overcome it, and the plane stays still. In which case it can't take off unless it is a Harrier or Osprey or something.
@@leow2672 Key word: air speed. How does an airplane gain speed?
It always pays to have a basic understanding of science. It keeps you from making an absolute fool of yourself.
'That's right! ' say it"..
A lesson your buddy Dave McKeegan is learning the hard way 😂
Get 'am, Neal. Flat Earth is an edgy subject. Globers are too basic.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Says the inadequate halfwit who couldn't answer simple questions about his fantasy.
Mate, flat earthers dont even understand how solar clock sun dial works. They think that shadow's needle does full 24 hour rotation no matter where on the planet it is.
FE boils down to two types of arguments.
There is the base, which is essentially "I don't trust the status quo. I only trust what my senses tell me (except when my senses tell me the world is a globe)."
And there is damage control, where everything that disproves FE so easily that it must also have a system of denial built around it: gravity, space, refraction, perspective, math, evidence, reality.... In other words, everything except their ad hoc inventions and interpretations ─ which, by the way, all contradict each other.
Exactly - one path leads to learning and understanding, and the other leads to insanity.
You overlooked the 3rd, and most common, type of flerfer: the "how many views can I get by spouting nonsense?" type of flerfer.
In other words, theology and apologetics
Flat Earth is just what a cult looks like in 2024. We don't need to join a commune anymore to create the us against the world mentality that allows for people to truly adopt insane world views as their whole personality. Some guys are the Charlatans. They are knowingly selling the BS for fame/money/whatever. Than there are the people who know its BS but go along because its kind of fun to troll people on the internet. Back in day, cults, attracted a lot of women, one major difference between them and Flat Earth and if you have a lot of women, guys are going line up to join. Than there are the true believers who attach the entirety of their being to the cult and no amount of proof will ever satisfy them that they are wrong. They end up drinking flavor aid in Guyana. If it turned out 4 Flat Earthers died while performing some half cocked experiment for which the result could be easily predicted , would anyone be surprised?
@@juanausensi499 and we must not forget "grift".
The fact that Flat Earth can be easily disproved by stuff LITERALLY EVERY KID LEARNS by the 9th grade should tell you how "intellectual" Flat Earth really is. Heck, the concept of every action having an equal and opposite reaction is something I personally knew since I was in fourth grade. Absolute idiocy at work here.
And if anyone had any question about how and why something works, the answers are there to be found and tested if need be.
Obviously the schools are in on it and teaching everyone wrong. That's why home schooling is so important for flerf kids....
Lol... Obviously I'm joking. As if flerfs could figure out breeding.
they don't believe in scients, its all made up by THEM. so in there mind every test you can make taht proofs something in a book, just proofs that the book is made up and doesn't show the reality...
Anyone who's shot a gun finds out about equal and opposite reactions REAL quick.
@@Sundablakr ...so does the person being fired at... 😆
When I was at school, how a rocket works was simplified to show (on a blackboard) four people inside a square box on the ground. Looking from above, you could see each person was pushing equally against the four sides so the box didn't move. If you opened one side of the box so one person could not push against it, the person on the opposite side who was still pushing now made the box move in the opposite direction. Very simple to understand. So, with a controlled explosion, which is what a rocket engine is, the hole is the outlet at the bottom, and the direction of travel is at the top because that is where the unopposed pressure within the rocket container is. As a kid it was such a simple concept that I've always remembered it.
Using people to model the push is a really helpful analogy for making it click what's actually happening. It can be hard to grasp "ball bouncing into a balloon over and over again pushes it away", especially when trying to imagine all of those bounces producing a perfectly still balloon. I think it's the one consistent push that makes the idea more clear. And then once the idea is understood by whoever you're teaching at that moment, you can get into the nitty gritty of how we know all those bounces equal out. Premise first, specifics second.
Thank you for sharing this version of the analogy :D
@@riluna3695 Thanks for the kind words :)
And if you want more thrust, just put more people in the box. As the box moves away from the people that started it moving, just put more in. Keep putting more in as fast as you can and see how fast/ far the box moves. :)
It's still not at all an accurate way to try to approach educating about Newtonian action/reaction.
Trying to say something about exhaust velocity versus exhaust mass, and trying to actually teach action/reaction would be better than that deceptive model of 4 people pushing outward.
@@JFrazer4303 Exactly. Rockets work by conservation of momentum.
I find it deeply amusing that flerfs screech about "atmosphere needs a container" constantly, but also somehow don't realize that rockets take containers of oxygen out of the atmosphere to run their engines.
Come on, guys! You're the ones all about those containers in space, this time one really does exist and you don't know about it?
I think the argument they are trying to make there is that the earths atmosphere has to have a physical barrier to stay contained. They can't accept the fact that there is a vacuum above the pressurised air surrounding the Earth with nothing physical to block the air. It would seem as though they don't understand how gravity works.
The ones that know are lying, and the ones that dont know are too ignorant to care.
Especially since the atmosphere doesnt have a container seperating it from the sea level pressure and lower pressures higher up. They see "an airliner needs to be pressurized!" but dont realize the REASON an airliner needs to be pressurized is because the outside pressure is lower...
even better is when, if given the numbers for it, you realize the atmopshere would come no where close to filling up the dome, leaving most of the dome full of a VACUUM.
it`s because they deny Gravity, which is the container, so therefore they don`t get it ! 😄
@LaikaLGagarin1957 : To be fair, the pressure of water near the surface of the ocean is equal the pressure of the air near the surfsce of the ocean (14.7 psi). So that particular point you made wouldn't work as a rebuttal to their claims.
I have had this 'discussion' with the anti-spacers and it turns out I'm an idiot for understanding how physics works, which is sort of necessary when you work for a major aero-engine manufacturer.
Oh, I guess you're in the conspiracy. It's amazing with so many people in on it no one has managed to blow the whole thing. ;)
@@tristanridley1601 I am indeed in the conspiracy, and for the right amount of £££, I'll spill the beans*.
*Beans may not be of the variety requested. No refunds.
How much do they pay you?
I'm in the history conspiracy, and i feel we do not get paid enough to cover all the ancient aliens and advanced civilizations.
How much do they pay you to say the Earth is round?
@@PedroConejo1939 if possible, string beans. dont ask me for money tho, im broke
@@the_pelican_real I have a theory about string beans.
As an aerospace engineer, the claim that rocket engines couldn't work in a vacuum is physically painful to me.
Warning: the person who "has questions" has made a habit of spamming irrelevant comments to many of Dave's videos, ignores the information they're given, and has a tendency to gish-gallop. If you start answering them, you should know what you're in for.
@Yepbutno-yl5bx *_"glad i find one of your kind"_*
Human?
@Yepbutno-yl5bx "I'm a mechanical engineer by degree"
"Perspective makes things disappear bottom first"
You're no engineer kid.
As an airhead engine, you know we flat and domed.
@@WCDavis-cl7si *_"As an airhead"_*
Should have stopped right there, would have been more accurate.
While a rocket is in the atmosphere, the atmosphere does push against the exhaust plume, changing it's shape. This is the reason why rocket engines that are optimized for a vacuum have larger nozzle bells. In an atmosphere, the pressure of the air confines the rocket plume a bit. Using the large bell of a vacuum optimized engine in the atmosphere is less efficient because the exhaust separates from the sides of the engine before it reaches the end of the nozzle.
This doesn't mean that the exhaust bouncing off the atmosphere is propelling the rocket though; it just means that the atmosphere acts like a nozzle extension while it's there to push on the exhaust. Even if flat earthers aren't capable of understanding nuance, that doesn't mean the rest of us can't appreciate it.
Observing how the plume from a rocket engine changes shape as it gains altitude is a direct observation of the atmospheric pressure gradient, something else flerfs struggle with.
@@PeerAdder yeah you can see this best with rockets that use RP-1 as fuel because of the brilliant yellow and orange flame like the Saturn V launch
This is why aerospike is such a hot research topic and have been for decades because you would have a rocket engine that is efficient everywhere.
@@TheOz91 I think there are reasons its taken decades of research for aerospikes to not be widely adopted today. Weight, cooling, and combustion chamber complexity being the big issues. I spent a moment imagining a solid fuel aerospike booster with an ablative spike before imagining the spike getting launched out of the engine like a bullet as the hot exhaust gasses eat through the supporting material keeping it attached to the rocket. I wonder if that would be good for delta-v.
@@ktaylor9095 Yeah the cooling challenges are a big one even when we use the tech from the Space Shuttle Main Engines, which is one of the most efficient liquid rocket engines to ever be made.
A solid rocket expendable booster rocket like that might be viable if the fuel is dense enough that it would keep working all the way to orbit. It's an intriguing design thought, indeed.
Also, for those without a rocket in space to test themselves: bullets are fired from a gun with the same concept. Gunpowder has its own oxidizer as it burns to accelerate a bullet down the barrel. There wouldn't be enough oxygen to do so in a sealed cartridge.
The thought of these people having access to firearm cartridges is frightening.
@@0LoneTechGod bless America
In high school, the guy giving the physics lectures argued that bullets couldn't be fired in outer space because there's no air for the gunpowder to burn in. I wouldn't insult actual teachers by calling him a teacher. Everyone in the class knew he was wrong and being an idiot but he stuck to his beliefs despite any attempt at logic. I wonder if he was a flerf?
@@TonyHammitt They can be fired underwater.
@@TonyHammitt Ah yes, gunpowder, of which of course one of the ingredients is saltpeter, otherwise known as potassium nitrate, which is, all together now, an oxidiser :-)
No amount of Googling will overcome gross stupidity
I'm not sure how ads and AI-generated SEO'd-to-hell listicles could help anyway 🤔
Duct tape cannot fix stupid either... but with generous application, it can contain it...
Good ol Google school for the intellectually sounding commenter to imitate actual intelligence.
@@garrettmasarik8012 Excellent answer....
@@J.Sanity Honestly in this case few seconds of using Goggle (or whatever search engine you prefer) is more than enough
"Can't go further down because the ground is in the way." The first flight of starship might disagree with that statement 😂
😅
Rocket science is easy, it's rocket engineering that's difficult. Good ol' Issac Newton.
Rocket surgery on the other hand... ;-)
Is orbital mechanics considered part of rocket science? If so: I'd like to hear the easy version please. 😁
@@KonradTheWizzard Rocket science is how you get to the point where orbital mechanics takes over.
@@KonradTheWizzard Orbital mechanics are usually Newtonian mechanics (unless you get too close to something big, in which case relativity starts mattering)
@@KonradTheWizzard If you want to learn the basics of orbital mechanics, pick up a copy of Kerbal Space Program! (1, not 2...)
I will listen to the people who have proven that rockets can work, as opposed to the flatheads who insist it can't work in defiance of plenty of evidence it did and does work.
Yeah, the basis of science is take an observed fact and think up a model that explains it. Not think up a stupid model and then try and bend reality to make it work.
The ridiculous thing is that these days it's within reach for a small group or club to build their own rocket capable of reaching the vacuum of space. They could load it up with sensors, cameras and radios to gather any and all the data they want to know, beam it all back in real time, and have their very own data source, completely unmodified by the government or other conspirators.
They'll probably just say the chips they bought from China were compromised, though, and designed to bend the data once it reaches a certain height.
>Insist that the science the goverment teaches is fake
>tries to disprove rockets by using the science from the government
Its so irritating how they simply dismiss ALL photographic and video evidence with a hand wave and "thats fake!" 🙄
Who would have imagined that arrogant ignorant people would make fun of what they do not understand, showing their ignorance and arrogance 😮
Anyone who ever met an American
@@Kyrelel It's not our fault that we are better than you
My favourite way of explaining this to people that are starting to buy into flat earth is providing them with an experiment.
Stand on a skateboard on flat ground, hold a bowling ball or a heavy rock, throw the rock behind you. You went forward because of Newton's third law. If they think the rock is pushing against the air, have them throw a piece of styrofoam instead with a similar volume.
This way you can show them how a rocket engine works without explanations they might not yet be equipped to understand
Globers can ride a skateboard?
@@WCDavis-cl7siTony Hawk is a glober. Its too bad you flerfers could never hope to be as cool
Yeah, but they think that gas is different than objects like bowling balls. Just look at Brian Hill in the comments of GreaterSapiens rocket video.
@@maitele Tony Hawk is cool. You are a goober. Go play on your ball.
@@WCDavis-cl7si And who made Tony Hawk's Pro Skater? That's right, Mick West.
A minute in and an elementary school kid could answer those questions
I have always been a disaster with Physics and I don't consider past myself a particularly bright kid, but by middle school I knew how rockets worked.
Fact : Rocket engines actually work better in space, in a vacuum.
Burn in a vacuum ? That's why they carry all than liquid oxygen or some other oxidizer.
Normally, the exhaust from a rocket travels at supersonic speed. Meaning that it travels faster than any counter pressure can travel back to the rocket.
I think they think rockets are ramjets...
Not normally, always. (Re: the supersonic exhaust flow) That's what the throat is for, and therefore the expanding nozzle.
Unless I am mistaken, (totally possible) aerospace vehicle rocket engines' exhaust is always > 1M. ?
@@MattH-wg7ou Not quite always. The rocket engines built by amateurs don't always manage to get that supersonic flow.
Those tend to be few and far between, but, it can happen.
Burn rate to low, throat to broad, and similar are to blame. IE. Bad design or implementation can prevent the supersonic flow.
To be a Flat Earther it's not just rockets that are a problem, it's pretty much the entirety of physics.
It's not only physics either. Flerfs can't even understand 3D.
I'm a bit confused, the video is supposed to educate flat eathers but in the comments I can't see a single one of these people.
Everybody here seems to understand all of this already, so what's the point of the video?
@@Alfred-Neuman its because they can't read XD
Flat earthers don't comprehend that there is an entirety of physics. They just see isolated factoids. That is why they try to tackle them one by one and never all at once with a single model.
@@Alfred-Neuman what people should do is>find flat earth conspiracy videos, post there this video, and then MAYBE some of them will come to their senses xD :D
What it's so funny about the whole thing of not being able to push anything in a vacuum is that it's PRECISELY because of that that rocket engines are more efficient in a vacuum than in air. As you mentioned the gases leave the combustion chamber and get shot out of it through the throat but the nozzle is able to capture more thrust by taking advantage of the expanding gas as it leaves the throat. In a vacuum, this expansion is as efficient as it can get because there's no outside air to push it back or constrain it so the expansion of the gas is the optimal one and you get the most efficiency out of your engine. So rocket engines not only can work in a vacuum, they're the most efficient in a vacuum lol
The RS-25 engine used by the space shuttle and SLS has 23.6 % higher thrust in vacuum than at sea level.
Air compressed in a container would have equal pressure in all areas at once. Have flat earthers ever presented an ""explanation"" for why atmospheric pressure at higher altitudes is lower than that at ground level?
Of course not...every time they get asked to explain the pressure gradient we have in our atmosphere you either get denial or you hear rapid footsteps from them pancakia cult members running away, followed by tumbleweed rolling by and crickets chirping...
They like to say that "Gas pressure requires a container" ... without first demonstrating/proving the container you cannot prove gas pressure exists. It doesn't work the other way around.
Yes, they have an explanation. "Nuh-uh!"
I've heard them try to give two excuses, both bad.
1. Gases are produced at ground level, that's why pressure is greater closer to ground.
2. There is a natural order based on density.
Don't ask me to defend these things. I only know what the flerfs have said.
The problem is that they don't understand the definition of "pressurized". It DOES NOT mean "having pressure".
It means "artificially raised or maintaining pressure of a fluid IN A CONTAINER"
Air only being pressurized in a container isn't because it's impossible to have or increase pressure outside of a container, but because that just isn't what the word means!
Good old:
I do not understand it = It must be false
_ergo_
I do not understand it = I understand it
Which makes me doubt whether Cogity Erog Sum even works out for them
@@hartmutholzgraefe With flat Earthers, it's more like Cogito Zero Sum.
@@hartmutholzgraefe How about "Erro ergo sum"? 😝
I think so...therefore I'm thinking ...so...{{{headache}}}😊
Honestly, this isn't one of those things that are immediately obvious. Thanks for the clear explanation!
I worked out how rockets work when I was 5 years old. I even made my own at the time with a bottle, an air valve from a bike, a bike pump and some water. A party balloon substitutes too.
I proved earth was stationary when I was 6. We should hang out.
@@WCDavis-cl7siNo you did not. Got to lie to flerf. #GTLTF
@@CheapDayReturn Hey rocketboy. We see the same stars every night for 365 days a year. That's why we ain't moving. Now Go "pew pew pew" wif yo little rockets.
@@CheapDayReturn Imma call you "party balloon substitutes".
@@WCDavis-cl7si That's where you're wrong. Which stars we see depends on the time of the year and wheher or not you are in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. So, if you truly believe that what you say is true, and the stars are the same around the world and all year, observe the night sky over a year and travel to the other hemisphere to see if I'm right, and change your belief so it accords with the facts!
In Spanish, Jet engines are directly called "Reaction Engines".
Spanish Flerfs have it harder to avoid reality.
Are there Spanish Flerfs? I don't know anyone.
I read my first grown up science fiction novel when I was ten. I had the same question about what rockets pushed off in a vacuum. I was able to find the correct answer before home computers and Internet access were available. It is mind blowing that an adult can’t do this with Internet access. I also find it irksome that I had to use “grown up” in my first sentence because the porn industry has changed the connotations of the word “adult”.
These people are willfully ignorant. They have no desire to actually research the topic. It’s convenient to their worldview to ignorantly assert that rockets can’t work in a vacuum.
@@AM-rd9puAnd they want that warm, fuzzy feeling of being super smart and special.❤️
I think people would have understood you perfectly clearly if you said adult, I don't think there's much hard sci-fi porn out there.
@@hedgehog3180there’s a lot, but mostly fictional stuff
I often hear that Newton's 3rd law doesn't count or that Newton was just wrong. The fact that other physicists have accepted Newton's 3rd law doesn't matter to them. They are completely unresponsive to reason.
And that Newtonian Physics is used to engineer everything that moves in our world.
Misunderstand or Don't want to understand? There is a difference.
Flat earthers - You can't have a circus without clowns.
Romans: 🤦🏻
Jesters and comics tell more truth than textbooks, Circus Boy.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Perhaps, but they don't know squat about facts.
@@WCDavis-cl7sire tard
@@WCDavis-cl7siSo basically, you pretend to be a villain on the internet? very cool, your wife sends you her regards
Even Jet Engines dont push against the atmosphere -.-
They just push gas away from themselves.
Yes, its compressed air that they take in, but the motion comes from the gas blown out the back.
Fun fact: The same flerfers that think that rockets can't go into the exosphere because you need to "push off of air molecules" think that planes could magically go up into space without exerting extreme forces that would probably destroy the engines.
I have a simple demonstration for anybody doubting that rockets push on their reaction mass rather than the air. Sit on a wheeled roller chair on a smooth hard floor with a bowling ball and a similar sized ball of air (a balloon). One at a time push them horizontally away from yourself as hard as you can - which one makes you and the chair roll the other way?
That wouldn't actually prove it, only demonstrate it, which is not the same thing.
The simplest debunk is that if the rocket exhaust is moving away from the rocket at a certain speed, how can the exhaust "above" it (now leaving the nozzle) push against it if it is moving away at the same speed .. the rocket would stay in the same place shortly after ignition and acceleration would be impossible. Therefore it cannot be pushing against it.
@@Kyrelel your explanation is probably too complicated for a flerfer to think about, hell I think getting dressed must be challenge for a flerfer! My demo is more about the fact that the balloon and the bowling ball are bothr pushing air out of the way when you thrust them away but only the bowling ball provides noticeable thrust back so proving that pushing on the air is not the source of the thrust
Fact: there's no such thing as a flat-earth aerospace engineer.
I love how your dog is always like "hey, hey, you stopped scratching me."
The science is great too!
Nitromethane drag racing cars provide their own oxygen, so that's another unexpected thing that doesn't work on a flat earth.
They actually throw that much fuel in them that they are in danger of hydro locking, which is where the volume of liquid in the cylinder is greater than the Compressed volume of the cylinder.
I'm not sure if they would work in a vacuum though!
Don't they initially start the engines on methanol?
Yes. I did a bit of attempted education on the "pushing off of something" misconception on a FaceBook thread a while back.
What I found didn't surprise me, but it is annoying: Every single one of the folks that posted the "pushing off something" fallacy were completely uninterested in engaging in understanding and responding in good faith to anything which contradicted what they already believed. I continued only because I thought there might be people listening in to the conversation that hadn't already made up their mind and consequently would engage the information in good faith.
You did a great job of explaining how rocket engines actually work and the problems with believing that thrust is simply pushing off something else. Thanks.
The exhaust pushes off the rocket, which causes the rocket to move.
Or rather, what will become the exhaust, since it's not considered exhaust until it pushes off. :p
This applies to so many conspiracy theorists. These comments are full of people like this
@@K_End Agreed. I'd have to say that it's part of what makes conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists. It's not just the combination of confirmation bias and unequal standards of proof. They're driven by ideology first and foremost. The way they handle data is just a means to the end of advancing the ideology.
This is the whole objective for countering flerf nonsense: not to convince any flerfs (because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't come to through reason) but to try to stop other people from falling down the same rabbit hole.
All that rocket stuff goes right over their heads.
This needs more likes.
The bit where you cut the end off the balloon just made everything make sense. Thanks Dave. 😀👍
Flerfs are idiots, but in all honesty, I've run into regular folks who have the same misconception. The best demonstration would be to take a small light volleyball while sitting on a chair with rollers and push the ball quickly forward. You won't move much. Then do it with a bowling ball of the same size. You'll move a lot more. The two balls pushed against the same amount of air, yet you didn't move the same. (Tossing them the same distance would work too but would do a number on your floor.)
Careful, this is easy for people to misunderstand. I saw someone using this exact analogy to prove the opposite, by showing that pushing against a bowling ball caused him to move backwards, but pushing against empty air didn't. What he didn't realize of course was that it DID move him, just such a tiny amount that he didn't notice. So you have to find ways to make your analogies for these things dodge the misconception of "the force is so tiny it can't be noticed with the naked eye".
Personally I think if he'd done the same test on a skateboard, he might have perhaps noticed his mistake. One can hope, at least.
@@riluna3695 LOL isn't that like their typical thing of trying to have it both ways? They say that the rocket pushes against air to move, but his pushing against air doesn't make him move?
@@civwar64bob77 Pretty much. Their answers to questions are basically always the lowest-effort conclusions that can be drawn from the "some guy in the elevator just described the vague concept of physics" understanding they have of a given topic. You can usually trace their mistakes and misconceptions back to the most basic overview of a topic, like how "survival of the fittest" is assumed to be an animal-versus-animal tournament because that's what the name sounds like. Really the only time they dig deep on a topic is when the barebones easy understanding threatens a belief they like. And once THAT happens, they will dig EXACTLY as deep as they need to, no matter how shallow or how far, until they find something that lets them keep on believing what they wanted to, irrespective of if they understood it properly.
This is how normal people behave.
We're the weird ones.
The difference is that "regular folks" will understand how rockets really work once you explain it to them. Flat Earthers have a vested interest in believing otherwise - if they admit that rockets work in a vacuum, they would then have to explain how every photo taken from space shows the Earth to be a globe.
@@riluna3695 Yep, you nailed it.
I was taught this primary school at around 9 years old and no one in the class had any difficulty understanding it. Education seems to have gone backwards.
Hahahaha you are a liar. Schools are not Teaching 9 year olds how Rockets are assumed to work in “space”.
@@dickwayne7744what kind of pitiful education did you have where it took you more than 9 years to learn the laws of motion
I was taught that presenting a premise is not the same as proving it .. maybe we went to different types of school.
@@Kyrelelmy school taught established provable facts. This was 60 years ago.
@@Kyrelel Aside from examples Dave used in the video, Mythbusters fired a gun in vacuum
In another words, the greater back pressure there is the less efficiently a rocket or a jet engine works. This can be demonstrated with a water hose. When the tap is open the water sprays out at the end of the hose, thus generating thrust. But if you put the end of the hose under water the thrust is notably smaller compared to the situation when the end of the hose is in the air. This is because the back pressure is greater in water.
There is virtually no back pressure in space and it is the reason why a rocket engine works most efficiently there.
Being ignorant about a subject is ok, not everyone knows it all. The bad thing is when an ignorant claims something is true or false based on their beliefs or feelings and no evidence whatsoever.
Ignorance is fine. Ignorance can be corrected and removed by, well, learning about it. *proud* Ignorance is not fine. Being proudly ignorant and refusing to learn about what you're ignorant of becomes stupidity. Stupidity cannot be corrected and learned until it turns into normal Ignorance. But that means crushing ones pride. Because it comes from being proud of your ignorance.
I think it's important to differentiate jet propulsion from screw propellors. Without illustrating that a jet engine doesn't work like a helicopter propellor, there's a misconception being left on the table. The blades of a jet engine don't just push air through, they compress it to become a better oxidiser.
And generate additional gasses through combustion. The purpose of a jet engine is to generate a high-speed inertial mass that is directed in the opposite direction from the intended thrust.
Helicopter "propellors", or rotors, consist of aerofoils (wings) that act in the same way as fixed wing aerofoils to produce the lift.
@@kevinmould6979 Makes sense to me. N
"Rockets don't work in the vacuum."
I mean, they're DESIGNED to work in the vacuum. The engineers thought of that when they designed them (they also work in the atmosphere, but you get the point).
Cue flerfs saying that the engineers were taught misconceptions or are in on the conspiracy.
Conspiracy theorists think they're geniuses because they don't understand things.
I’ve always explained it to them like a rocket is a gun. The recoil of a gun doesn’t come from the bullet hitting the air, it comes from the bullet travelling toward the target. The rocket exhaust is the bullet that provides recoil (thrust) to the gun (rocket)
Ironically this is literally where the term recoil comes from.
I've learned more physics from my two favorite Daves (you know the other one) crushing flat earthers than I did in 12 years of school
professor Dave? you mean the middle school teacher that made an ass of himself, frothing at the mouth on Livestream?
For me: not necessary learned, but brushed up and re-learned for sure.
@@a-nus
1. He taught at a college.
2. Which livestream exactly?
@@a-nusYou mean where he spanked Dave W. like a dom in a video?
@@a-nus lol. Dave Weiss is a scammer who got wrecked by Dave Farina.
Eric Dubay is a scammer who got wrecked by Dave Farina.
Both of them are just scammers lying to people for money.
That title really does flat earthers a disservice. They don't understand anything...
I love how your dog is like: "stop talking and scratch me!" He/she doesn't care about flat earthers! Good Puppy!
Awwwww. it looks like TheLastChapter2023 had to delete his entire thread and run away. I guess the mean man on the internet hurt his feel parts by stating "Facts".
I think he was touched somewhere inappropriately by a textbook once, and now he is afraid of them.
"Push off of what" lmao, maybe it's pushing off the stuff that's clearly being pushed out the back?
Pushed out at _ten times_ the speed of sound or more!
i can already hear the flerfs going: "nuh uh" 😂
15 NASA Declassified Research Papers
That Admit Flat &
Stationary
Nonrotating Earth !
Updated: Jun 23, 2019
1. NASA's Reference Publication
#1207 entitled Derivation and
Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model
assumes the Earth is flat and not
rotating. Produced in August 1988, the
publication details obscure concepts
such as "Rotational Acceleration" and
"Earth-Relative Velocity. " Or to a
layman, how planes lift off, fly over, and
land upon the Earth. Immediately
following the cover page and index on
the very first line under Summary we
nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88
104main_H-1391.pdf
And below are 14 more Aeronautic
Papers and Technical
Memorandums that say the same:
2. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics;
General Equations of Motion for a
Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2,
Section ll) ... "In this paper, the rigid
body equations of motion over a flat
33withthest/ TikTok
@withthesun33
Back Up
TikTok
@Elnufo 20 minutes later the flerf comes to prove you right
@@dannystefanovski5513 so are aircraft rigid and use no fuel?
@@dannystefanovski5513 I love how you posting this, proving you have no idea what any of it says or means. Hilarious.
@@dannystefanovski5513Do yourself a favor and learn about engineering assumptions.
The answer is, in a weird kinda way, the rocket exhaust pushes off the rocket itself. The exhaust is trying to expand, but the walls of the nozzle prevent it from spreading. So it slams into the walls of the rocket motor, giving it a little push, and then flies out the end of the bell. That’s not including the gas molecules slamming into each other, before some slams into combustion chamber walls. Those molecules pick up more energy from being hit by their neighbors, and then hit the combustion chamber. There’s a limit to how much energy is transferred with each interaction though, no transfer of energy can truly be 100% efficient. So only a small fraction of the energy is compounded as the gas interacts with itself. But the fact remains, with billions and trillions of these molecules interacting with the spacecraft every fraction of a second, it provides a decent forward thrust.
Tl:dr: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
The truth is even IF they were correct about rockets - and they aren't - it wouldn't disprove a globe anyway.
Your intense belief in a globe does not make it so.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Your intense play acting doesn't change reality lad.
Flat earthers deny rockets because it is a path to denying every result based on rocket science including NASA's pictures of death as a globe. It is possible to accuse NASA of being a conspiracy even if rockets do work, and if you are successful at proving that rockets work, you are still about 10 layers of obstinacy way from convincing them.
@@WCDavis-cl7si your lack of belief in a globe doesn't make it not so.
Please state what you do believe and provide evidence for it. Do you believe that rockets can't work in a vacuum, or that there is no vacuum of space, or that all reports of space travel and its associated data are false?
Or are you going to play the A-globist card: you're just not convinced that the earth is a globe? Perhaps you think this means you have no burden of proof, but you would be wrong.
Even if you are unconvinced about the shape of the earth at all (I assume you do believe that it has a shape) there are basically only two choices: flat or curved. So to be fundamentally unconvinced about the shape of the earth is to be unable to decide between these two.
Yet I can prove (and I do mean prove) that there is a fundamental, irreconcilable difference between these two answers for the shape of the earth. And then point to a totality of evidence that is consistent with this difference in the case of a curved earth, and zero evidence in favour of a flat one (and I do mean zero). So, after seeing that, anyone who remains "unconvinced" has the burden of proof to demonstrate why it is reasonable for them to continue to insist on holding that position.
@@WCDavis-cl7si Explain how the inability of rockets to work in a vacuum proves the Earth is flat. I DARE you.
Thank you for not just saying "conservation of momentum" like so many do, and actually explaining that there's a force on the inside of the combustion chamber pushing the rocket. Too many explanations just say "exhaust goes this way so the rocket has to go that way to conserve momentum", as if conservation of momentum is a cause of anything rather than a description after the fact.
Yes indeed. Conservation of momentum can be explained as a consequence of Newton's third law. However, in an explanation, saying conservation of momentum glosses over where the thrust, another name for "rocket force", comes from. Folks who do physics for a living understand the issue, but it may not be the best way to explain things on TH-cam, particularly when some of the listeners are skeptics.
I don’t think your characterization is fair. Conservation of momentum reflects the same underlying phenomenon, just looked at from a different perspective. It is not any less valid of a way to explain what is happening.
@thegoondockswarcouncil9543 it doesn't explain *why* it's happening at all. It just says "trust me, it all adds up."
@@phunkydroid I disagree. It explains things, just at a higher level of abstraction-it is a summary of what’s happening. I agree you can get more information by digging to a more granular explanation. But that doesn’t invalidate the more abstract explanation. The explanation in terms of gas expanding and pushing against the rocket is itself an abstraction-you could go deeper still to discuss the intermolecular interactions between the gas and the solid rocket engine, discussing how they don’t actually “touch” but rather interact via electromagnetic force (and to a lesser extent other forces) as they come near each other, or even more granular and discuss quantum interactions therebetween. Hell, describing the gas molecules as particles is itself an abstraction. Just because a more granular explanation exists does not make the more abstract explanation invalid. One may be more useful than the other in a given context, that I agree with. But it’s not always the more granular. For example, sometimes it’s better to describe what’s going on with a ballon in terms of pressure (an abstract summary of more granular interactions) while other times it might make more sense to describe the velocities of billions of molecules in the ballon and their collisions with the walls of the balloon. You would not say the pressure explanation does not “actually” explain things just because it’s more abstract.
@@phunkydroid what’s more, I challenge the notion that describing the gas as “pushing” against the rocket is somehow more explanatory and less of a summary. As I am sure you know, the explanation for why the gas molecules transfer force to the rocket when they collide with comes down to the changes in momentum of the molecules pre- and and post- collision. The amount and direction of force is determine by the momentum. Indeed, how do you even separate force from momentum? Force is, fundamentally, a change in momentum, and vice versa. It’s two ways of looking at or explaining the same underlying phenomena.
If the flerfs were right the bomb squad would just carry a vacuum chamber around instead of defusing bombs.
Please breed. Please have lots of children. Ha ha.
I remember being a kid and wondering about how helicopters stay up at high altitude, because I’d assumed they were held up by a kind of solid pillar of fast air - in effect a piece of air had to travel as a continuous thing, from the rotor to the ground, to support the craft. It’s interesting that as a child I was one step less silly than the people who think that the air then has to bounce all the way back up again.
short summary:
Rockets don't need atmospheric oxygen to operate in space because they carry their own oxidizers onboard. This allows them to burn fuel and generate thrust even in the vacuum of space, where there is no external oxygen. This capability has been proven through numerous successful space missions.
The space which does not exist, apparently!
Thinking rockets propel themselves by pushing themselves off of the ground, is how a young child would perceive physics and tries to explain it with its limited knowledge; "I need to push against something to force my body to go the other way. Rockets must work the same then."
Many people never grow up beyond the level of children, though, and as such will continue to think this is how rockets actually work. It's not their fault at all either, it's how things work. Some people are capable of having more knowledge (and can apply that knowledge) than others. The worrying bit is that flat-earthers - while a lot of them don't believe anything they say themselves either, if you ask me - (ab)use this and have people question science in every aspect all together..
The only thing a flerf needs to do is imagine how a child would see things and ask questions accordingly... It's really that simple and I bet you they have a lot of fun doing it otherwise it would have stopped long ago. It wouldn't be a lot of fun acting like a child if everyone would treat you like one and ignore your questions because that's what grown-ups do with questions they deem too difficult for children.... "It's like that because it is. You'll learn when you grow up and do your best in school..."
Essentially, trying to debunk flerfs is fueling their flerfiness... But it makes for great videos from Dave from which I regularly pick something up myself!
Nicely done. Another point is about the pressure inside the combustion chamber. Some flat-earthers claim that with the big 'hole' in the chamber that leads out the bottom through the nozzle, any pressure should 'instantly' expand out the hole and so you can't have any pressure build up inside the chamber.
But the exhaust molecules have mass and it takes TIME to build up velocity and accelerate them out the nozzle. Not very much time grant you, but it does take several milliseconds. And the thing with those liquid fueled rockets is, those pumps are pumping fuel/ oxidizer INTO the chamber at phenomenal rates. The F-1 engines of saturn V pumped more than 5 TONS of fuel/ oxidizer every SECOND. Essentially 'keeping' the combustion chamber full by replacing the combustion gasses just as fast as they leave. So combustion chamber pressure is maintained dynamically by constantly replacing the matter that is shooting out the nozzle.
(one bit of trivia I remember about the Saturn V, they start the main engines in a sequence and run them up to full thrust before releasing the rocket. While sitting there from T minus 5 to T minus zero, they burn through about 70 TONS of fuel. Think of it, that's 70 tonsburned off before they even release the hold-down clamps!!! )
I literally asked my friend this once... he literally does work on aircraft, but having it explained once about mass/matter displacement did it for me. They don't want to understand. EDIT: I asked in my 20s because I was at the gym with him. He also explained why 4 rotors on a full sized helicopter would be less efficient and that's why we don't have huge drones like in Avatar (James Camron, not the perfect tv show) I literally tried to pitch a 4 rotor chopper to an aerial engineer. I listened though, makes sense. (the equivalent of surface area but with air pressure and less interference between the rotors)... he said it in like 2 sentences, I'm ranting about unrelated things in youtube comments.
One of the stupidest "arguments" I have ever heard: rockets need an atmosphere to push off of. 🤦
Er, then how do you explain satellite positioning thrusters? They're in vacuum but are moved by their thrusters.
@@alwaysinquisitive9898 its the same way that he explained it, but in a mini size just enough to spin that small spacecraft out of collision
@@alwaysinquisitive9898 Flat earthers don't believe in satellites or orbital mechanics. They believe they are a trick, and that the government places false lights in our sky to make them appear to be visible.
@@alwaysinquisitive9898 most of them are powered with solar energy, they do not need a fuel, also many of them are controlled from Earth also by electrical engine which can receive signal from Earth control center. Do you think people at NASA and in other science stations are there just to sit and drink coffee and watch TV shows !?
2:46 the oxidizer in TNT is the nitrogen - the oxygen atoms already have 2 extra electrons from the nitrogen in the nitro group. the Nitrogen on the other hand is oxidized to +5 - it has given up 5 electrons and would very much like some back. this is also the reason nitric acid works so good as an oxidizer. when mixed with sulfuric acid it can oxidize even gold
I don't know how you do it without being patronizing. This is introductory high school physics. You have the patience of the saint, though the AdSense and sponsorship money do help.
He’s the Jekyll to professor Dave’s Hyde
@@oberonpanopticon thats why i don't watch professor dave
Twice he has tried and failed to explain why we can't go back to the moon. So I will do it for you:
WE WUZ SO MUCH SMARTER IN THE 1960'S Y'ALL. WE WUZ MOON-DROPPING FLAGS AND FLARES UP THERE WHILE 4 OUT OF 5 DOCTORS SMOKED KENT CIGARETTES DOWN HERE.
If you believe we could do something 60 years ago, but cannot now; dumb.
@@WCDavis-cl7si That's at least three times you've posted that dumb comment, and nobody could be bothered to respond.
So lad, which map did you decide works for the flat earth, and why can't any of you larpers agree on it?
@@leftpastsaturn67 Suck it, lefty; also buy a map
A. Rockets bring their own oxidizer.
B. Newton's laws don't require anything to push off of.
You are not quite correct with B.: Newtons Law requires something to push against but in the case of a rocket the something is it's own burning/burnt fuel
@@chrisglen-smith7662 We all get what he meant but you just have to argue the semantics... "Anything environmental" Now, happy?
@@kaksspl But I am technically correct which is the best kind of correct, especially when talking about rockets!
I would say I was being pedantic rather than arguing semantics, semantics being the study of meaning and the meaning of Scott's words being technically wrong. There I am being pedantic again! 🤣🤣. p.s. I don't understand "anything environmental"? But, yes, I'm happy, thanks. Hope you are too!
@@chrisglen-smith7662 I think by "anything environmental" they mean "anything outside of the rocket", and it's a clarification of the "anything" in the original comment.
@@chrisglen-smith7662 I would argue that it's actually pushing against the pressure plate (or the combustion chamber directly opposite the throat , which is the only part of the combustion that doesn't have an equal opposite force balancing it to zero (much like a car axle is supported by the part of the tire opposite that contracting the ground (hoop stress)). Free-body diagram. Technically correcter?
How can you expect people who don't know anything about basic physics to understand how rockets work?
Unfortunately that simple explanation is still beyond the flat earth crowd.
Explaining this to flat earthers is no different than trying to teach dogs trigonometry. They have capacity deficits that can not be overcome.
A dog is more likely to understand trigonometry than flat earthers are to understand newton’s laws of motion.
@@NuclearLabRat I think many humans have capacity, most only lack the incentive to apply it.
@@NuclearLabRat I'm pretty sure that, with patience, dog treats, and some pictures of triangles, dogs would end learning trigonometry.
Flerfs will claim that the vacuum of Space sucks the burning fuel out of the rocket nozzle so no thrust is produced.
I am 61.I understood the rocket principle at the age of 8.
Before ever having a single physics lesson.
To become an 'adult' without ever mastering a concept that simple shows a mind boggling determination to be ignorant. 🙄🙈🙉
To be honest, we (I'm 63) had the advantage of not having social media when we were young and we used to read books, which requires some intellectual effort, unlike watching TikTok memes.
@@betaorionis2164 misinformation spreads life fire in the internet so do useful ideas reading books is a really good thing though you can usually learn with books much more better there is also auido books which I really like because you can listen to them while reading a book which really helps with reading it!
The principle behind rockets is remarkably simple so really any child can understand it.
@@betaorionis2164 technology could still be used in a good way though, i learned the trajectory rockets make in order to reach other celestial bodies (low earth orbit, transfer window, etc.) at 10 from a video game
The ‘push off’ bit is something I used to to think but then I was only about 4 or so. Then I got a bit older.
I applaud your composure. I would have a hard time keeping it together with "arguments" this ignorant.
Fire needs oxygen to burn? Yes, have you noticed this big tank labelled "OXYGEN" taking up more than half the volume of the rocket?
The fact that I was able to debunk both questions just by seeing the thumbnail tells you all you need to know about the extent of flat earthers knowledge of basic physics
The annoying thing about those guys is that you just can't argue with them.
They spew their BS in your direction and when you come with actual information they will just either counter with more BS or say that your stuff is fake.
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."
A good analogy is that it's easier to beat a grand master at chess than it is beating a pigeon, because the grand master won't knock all the pieces out and shit on the board
They throw around the word “vacuum” like I’m at a store selling them
The argument that rockets need something to push against is such a silly one. If it were true, then any rocket taking off would begin slowing down the further it got from the ground.
Also, you can fire a rocket sideways (don't try this at home) at it works just fine.
Another way to visualize it: If you're floating in space standing on a table, and you jump off, the table gets pushed down and you get pushed up. The fuel is the table, the jumping is the combustion, and the rocket moves because it keeps producing tables to "jump" off.
I refuse to believe flat earthers genuinely believe the earth is flat, it has to be a troll, no one is that stupid (except tik tokers).
Sort comments by Newest and scroll down for a couple of weeks. If they're trolls they work really hard at it.
A strong enough antiestablishment bias can lead people to reject anything.
Seems that the propulsion is the easiest issue to get over. Mix fuel and oxidizer make go boom. The hard part is making go boom safely and in a controlled manner.
There is a fine line between 'rocket scientist' and 'munitions expert' 😂
@@DaveMcKeeganReal rocket scientists know that there is no line. 😂
@@DanielMWJthis is the ksp rocket scientist way
ME-163 has entered the chat.