Flying without Resistance? Space is not a vacuum.
So they take oxidizers yada yada rockets in space yada yada sun constantly combusting yada yada stuff in space is moving yada yada.
So. Tell me. If space is a vacuum, what is the resistance against which ANYthing in space moves?
If you so much as imply “Newton said it, I believe it, that settles it” I will look at you very sternly.
Geodesics. Vectors. Lensing. Fractals. Fix it. Google sucks.
You know what a centimeter is, right? It is a 1 dimensional unit of measure of distance.
You know what a cubic centimeter is, right? It is a 3 dimensional unit of measure of distance, which we call volume, or in simple terms…SPACE.
You know what a Gallon is, right? It is a 3 dimensional unit of measure of distance, which we call volume, or in simple terms…Space.
There is 3785.411784 cubic centimeters of space in a volume of 1 Gallon.
If you have a 1 gallon container then it is 1 gallon whether it is 25% full, or 50% full, or 100% full. It is 1 gallon of SPACE regardless of its content.
You can prove this by having a box that is the volume of 1 gallon.
If the box is empty it is the same volume as it is full. It DOES NOT MATTER how much “stuff” is in the box, the box is simply 1 gallon of space.
Our solar system is a specific volume of space, regardless of how much “stuff” is contained in that volume. It is the same concept of a specific size box maintaining that volume of space whether it is full or empty.
When you say “space” you are talking about the 3 dimensional distance (volume), irrespective of the content of that space.
There is space and there is the content of space. Space is simply 3 dimensional distance, measured in CC or Gallons, or some other unit of volume. It has NOTHING to do with friction, or resistance, or matter. It is simply 3 dimensional distance.
So. Tell me about Planck density.
Density is mass per volume, or quantity of matter per volume.
Obviously you can have 1 gallon of water or 1 gallon of air. 1 gallon of water has a greater density than 1 gallon of air.
Space is simply 1 gallon in both cases.
I would suggest that not using the “word” yada might be a good idea.
Maybe you have not really understood the problem you are trying to express.
What are “they”? Who take “oxidisers” ; what are they?
ANd your last line is absurd.
What are you trying to say? That space is a vacuum or not?
You are describing simple Archimedean density. Planck density is something else…
The Planck density is the unit of density, denoted by ρP, in the system of natural units known as Planck units.
≈ 5.1 × 1096 kg/m3
where:
mP is the Planck mass
lP is the Planck length
c is the speed of light in a vacuum
is the reduced Planck constant
G is the gravitational constant
This is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 1023 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. At one unit of Planck time after the Big Bang, the mass density of the universe is thought to have been approximately one unit of Planck density.
If you Google “how do rockets fly in space?” and scan down the page of results, you will read the word oxidizer several times and it does not answer the question. Even if you Google using the words lift and drag—it STILL doesn’t answer the question.
If space were actually a vacuum there would be no way for a rocket to fly in it, or anything else to even move in it.
This may be relevant:
youtu.be/reDBX6k_8TU
Density is mass per volume. It’s not a theory, it is a definition.
In your post, kg is mass, and m3 is cubic meters which is a volume of space. Like I said, density is mass per volume. It is not space. m3 is volume, which is space.
Let’s talk about light and the density of a photon.
Let’s talk about source and sink. Let’s talk about repeller and attractor.
Yes defined by Archimedes, as I said.
Yes defined by Archimedes, as I said.
Planets move through space with no resistance since their mass is so great they tend to collect small particles in their path.
Photons are theoretical packets of light. The idea is that they do not have mass, as they move at the speed of light.
eyeroll
Bye!
Final Thought
If you have Brian Greene’s “Fabric,” check out page 75ish, and note 23 on page 499, and all the pages listed for space & spacetime in the index, and the whole book. In a nutshell the particular pages I referred you to mentioned Einstein’s position that spacetime is something, not nothing.
Also in Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos:
Entropy starts out ordered with the Big Bang, or first cycle. That’s a problem science can’t touch.
Likewise, if the universe were infinite, we would have already achieved heat death.
The vacuum energy & branes & stuff… something had to light the fuse, so to speak, or this never would’ve kicked off.
The other thing not many mention is what a beginning even means if the whole thing began complete (so every now is the beginning, and end, really, and the beginning & end, & every now, exist in Being/Time).
The only philosopher I have read that seems to understand Time (God’s Being) is Kant… but I have barely scratched the tip of the philosophy iceberg.
The universe has a bellybutton. It’s low entropy at the beginning, and ever increasing entropy, and (by contrast) irreducible complexity wherever it is found uninitiated by human/contingent intelligence.
Obv the Creator of all bellybuttons (beginnings, singularities) is going to have no bellybutton (is going to be necessary rather than contingent, and have intelligence to spark the beginning and the nonhuman/AI irreducible complexity).
Even if there was no identifiable beginning because it began all at once complete (fractal)… that can’t happen without a mind to sustain it, especially when you factor in information exchanged between “previously” unentangled (physically, anyway) moments.
I googled…
This is what I get…
On Earth, air tends to inhibit the exhaust gases getting out of the engine. This reduces the thrust. However, in space since there is no atmosphere, the exhaust gases can exit much easier and faster, thus increasing the thrust. Therefore, the rocket engine actually works better in space than here on Earth.
Rocket fuels combines the hydrocarbon (gas), and the Oxygen (oxidizer). This combination causes the burn and the expanding gasses create the thrust.
Space vehicles can also move with compressed air. Retro rockets to set trim, yaw, pitch, and rotation simply let off the air and create a thrust without combustion.
THis is confused and shows a lack of basic physics education. How do you think the earth goes round the sun?
Consulting Greek philosophy from a time when basic mechanics was not fully understood might not be the best strategy.
looks at Sculptor very sternly
That’s not what I found when I googled it. When I googled it, I found this:
livescience.com/34475-how-d … t-air.html
Newton’s Third Law could explain how a rocket could change its trajectory or velocity in space. Conservation of momentum. If you shoot stuff out of your ass, you fly forward - even in a vacuum.
Not that I think space is strictly a vacuum anyway. What are you arguing for here? You think it’s not a vacuum, so what specifically are you saying it has in it, and who are you disagreeing with?
looks at FJ very sternly
A true vacuum would have zero movement.
“Space” curves and matter moves.
Question.
Is atmosphere space or matter?
See previous unanswered questions.
Look. I’m not the one who can articulate answers. All I have are questions based on hunches sparked by the available “answers”.
Once you’ve caught up… let’s taste the rainbow & talk about Snell-Descartes & coincidences.
