Latest News

60 Comments on Balls Out Physics Episode 5.0: Propulsion in Space

  1. Brian Mullin // 8th Apr 2016 at 5:53 am // Reply

    Simple proof that a reaction is required between the propellant and the
    surrounding environment:

    Will have to do a similar experiment.

    • +Peter Galbraith Reductive reasoning you have there

    • Jonathan Lawrence // 13th Jul 2016 at 3:46 am // Reply

      Good video. I’ll check out your next video before I send critiques. But I
      think you have a lot of great observations.

    • beer money // 15th Jul 2016 at 1:54 am // Reply

      he just redirects the thrust sideways….. and the balloon does not have
      enough thrust to push the toy sideways because the wheels act as a brake

  2. Dennis Kautz // 13th Apr 2016 at 3:46 am // Reply

    Very well said. I would like to know your opinion is regarding air travel
    at high altitudes and comparing that to a vacuum. At altitude, higher
    speeds can be accomplished due mostly to density, I assume. The thrust
    would seem to be somewhat relative to the less dense air but there would
    also be a decrease in the ‘channel created from the turbine engine. If
    there was less pressure on this channel, one would think the thrust would
    be counter balanced by the higher pressure. Am I making any sense?

  3. Sigma Octantis // 11th May 2016 at 2:00 pm // Reply

    “A vacuum sucks” *No it doesn’t, atmospheric pressure pushes.*
    “Negative pressure” *Is a misnomer, it just means the pressure is lower

    Wow you are a complete moron.

    • Sigma Octantis // 12th Jul 2016 at 11:46 am // Reply

      +Dylan Estes You do realize I can’t see Polaris at any time of the year due
      to my latitude, right? Yes that simple fact blows flat Earth theory out of
      the water. Next?

    • Dylan Estes // 13th Jul 2016 at 5:52 am // Reply

      +Sigma Octantis If you consider polaris to be a pulsating star millions of
      light years away then yes.

    • Sigma Octantis // 13th Jul 2016 at 10:24 am // Reply

      +Dylan Estes What has it’s distance got to do with anything? The point is
      it’s not in my sky because it’s permanently below my horizon and obscured
      by the planet. This transcends anything to do with perspective and distance
      and proves the Earth is round. How can you not get this ridiculously simple
      concept through your thick skull?

    • Ignius Gooth // 13th Jul 2016 at 3:08 pm // Reply

      +Dylan Estes
      Did you know the moon’s orientation rotates as a function of latitude? Some
      have attempted to say this is like putting a picture on a ceiling and
      looking at it from two sides of a room…except that wouldn’t give you the
      rotation, only an inversion, AND you would see the moon invert it’s
      orientation anywhere on the planet as it came towards you and as it went
      away from you. I’ve seen the rotation occur within the northern hemisphere
      from traveling 30 degrees over the surface.

      Don’t you think it’s a bit peculiar that the moon’s orientation is directly
      related to latitude as well as the north’s stars position in the sky? And
      actually all stars are related to latitude, it’s just that the north star’s
      position is exactly the latitude. This is easily explained if latitude is
      the angle of rotation about the center of the earth.

      Why would flat earth be tempting to believe in. It’s ridiculous. There
      isn’t any evidence. I find it very peculiar that flat earthers send
      balloons up in the sky and say “WHERE’s THE CURVE!?” when they only go up a
      fraction of a percent of the radius of the planet and see a horizon that
      extends only a few hundred miles covering only a few decimal degrees of the
      earth’s surface. Why do they have this idea that the curve should be so
      prominent that close to the surface.

      You have to believe that millions of scientists, space agencies, engineers,
      software developers, and all governments have made up a lie about a
      spherical planet that’s so genius that it fits all the observational data
      and can be independently confirmed. Why would they do this? I’ve heard many
      say in order to hide knowledge of the true creator. Well if that were the
      motivation then it failed miserably as there are billions of believers
      around the world. So why? Why would this happen?

    • Ignius Gooth // 13th Jul 2016 at 3:13 pm // Reply

      +Dylan Estes
      “If you consider polaris to be a pulsating star millions of light years
      away then yes.”

      Millions of light years away!? You think you can see ANY stars millions of
      light years away? The Galaxy itself is not even millions of light years
      across, it extends 50,000 light years. Polaris is a around four hundred
      light years away.

  4. Ray Whitson // 19th May 2016 at 12:51 am // Reply

    I do appreciate amateur rocket scientist’s explaining why “things” don’t
    work, but you have some fundamental flaws with some very basic concepts.

    • screamin habbits // 27th May 2016 at 4:17 am // Reply

      +Ray Whitson Space doesn’t exist man. We live under a dome called the

    • Ray Whitson // 27th May 2016 at 4:38 am // Reply

      +screamin habbits tell that to my satellite radio station that works in the
      middle of a national forest where I lost cell coverage 50 miles ago 🙂

    • screamin habbits // 27th May 2016 at 4:49 am // Reply

      +Ray Whitson It’s a blimp dude not a satellite.

    • Ray Whitson // 27th May 2016 at 5:00 am // Reply

      +screamin habbits that’s funny!! Do you have any idea how many “blimps”
      they would have to put in the air to cover just the US, and keep completely
      hidden!! they would have to get them to the same altitude as weather
      balloons AND figured out how to keep them from moving AND find a way to
      replace ones that fail without any of them falling to the ground and…
      Well why go on, you must believe it’s one grand conspiracy to pull just
      that off much less million of scientist around the world and everyone with
      a telescope!

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 2:25 pm // Reply

      +Ray Whitson well it takes faith to believe they got to space with math
      that doesn’t work. religious faith.

  5. Steve Reid // 21st May 2016 at 5:10 pm // Reply

    I learn a lot from your videos… I wait for you to say “The way I see it”,
    then I know everything you say after that is wrong.

  6. Jared Testerman // 5th Jun 2016 at 1:13 am // Reply

    if all that water evaporated all at once.that would make a boom right.

  7. Yakshizee Tenzen // 5th Jun 2016 at 5:59 pm // Reply

    The most important thing people don’t take into consideration is that ever
    since the big bang, we, meaning the know & unknown universe have been
    traveling at astronomical speeds with nothing to slow us down. So in
    essence our goal shouldn’t be trying to go faster but to slow down or stop.
    Just as we don’t recognize the speed of the planet’s revolution, we don’t
    comprehend how fast we’re being hurled through space as a result of the big
    bang. If we could manage to slow down after we’ve enter space or even stop,
    in theory we should be able to watch as the universe shoots by in the blink
    of an eye. Scientist have said that their is a limit to speed & after a
    while you begin to bend space & time by milliseconds, therefore, light
    travel may already be in affect & we don’t notice because we’re moving at
    that speed already. So in essence the goal should be to slow down or stop,
    the big question after that would have to be, could you ever catch back up

  8. Nick Olson // 6th Jun 2016 at 2:58 am // Reply

    Quite surprising all these theories taught in physics and astronomy turn
    out to be false. I recall the guy who taught astronomy to my class was
    intelligent and sincere. He never questioned how preposterous these
    theories now are shown to be. How could he miss that the facts indicate
    that the earth is not rotating? Any student then that would have raised
    such a question would have been eliminated from the class. Even today the
    same junk is polluting the mind of students seeking truth around the world.
    It is good the truth is now arriving slowly and surely.

    • Brian Mullin // 6th Jun 2016 at 3:51 am // Reply

      Fear of being ridiculed for questioning has kept the questions from being
      asked it seems.

    • +Nick Olson
      Or, all these theories are correct but there is a bunch of random people on
      the Internetz who don’t understand any of it and who can’t (or don’t want
      to?) figure out how it actually works (despite the significant amount of
      comments pointing out the mistakes and errors in their demonstrations).
      Which frankly is not surprising.

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 2:31 pm // Reply

      because he just accepts the assumed values for anything. like the
      gravitational constant, and distance to the sun and so on, as proven fact.
      even though you cannot prove it. he’s just never tried to prove it.

  9. justame smith // 8th Jun 2016 at 11:24 pm // Reply

    You mentioned mass. The more I read, I’m not sure I can agree this exists.
    Just another fictitious term.The weight of an object is the force of
    gravity on the object and may be defined as the mass times the acceleration
    of gravity, w = mg. Since the weight is a force, its SI unit is the newton.
    Density is mass/volume. I just don’t know

    • Hellothere _1 // 16th Jul 2016 at 1:35 am // Reply

      Dude. Are you seriously trying to say that we should measure the mass of an
      object in newton?

      That is so fucked up I can’t even…

      Do you have any idea what sort of mess that would create if you tried to
      calculate literally anything?
      For example, since acceleration=force/mass, using measuring both mass and
      force in newton would result in acceleration having no unit at all.
      Since speed=acceleration*time and distance= speed*time, as a result we
      would end up measuring distance in square-seconds, that’s how stupid the
      measuring system you propose is.

      Seriously, don’t mess with basic Newtonian physics. You can only loose.

    • justame smith // 16th Jul 2016 at 1:45 am // Reply

      Newton equated mass with weight. You don’t mess with basic Newtonian physics

    • Hellothere _1 // 16th Jul 2016 at 3:20 am // Reply

      +justame smith
      Okay, before we get into any more confusing arguments over definitions,
      what is it in this context that you define as weight?

      Earlier you said that it’s a force and now you’re saying that it’s the same
      thing as mass.

      I’ve seen people use both definitions somewhat sensibly, but we have to
      decide on one or we’ll keep arguing in circles.

    • justame smith // 16th Jul 2016 at 5:57 am // Reply

      +Hellothere _1 I am using it in the exact same way that Newton described it
      for an object on earth. in other words. Me and Newton say that theyre the
      same thing

    • Hellothere _1 // 16th Jul 2016 at 6:55 am // Reply

      +justame smith If they are the same thing then what’s your whole point in
      first place?

  10. Elizabeth Brown // 10th Jun 2016 at 2:51 am // Reply

    I hope you do not teach. The jet of outgoing air from a jet engine is not
    “pushing” on stationary air. The thrust is developed by the mass of air
    thrown out by the engine and the engine moves in the opposite direction due
    to Newton’s 3rd law. You have to throw out a LOT of air. Space does not
    Suck. They do not throw valuable oxygen out to create thrust. They combine
    it with liquid hydrogen and ignite it to create more energy and velocity.
    NEWTON’S THIRD LAW read it. Why are you not wearing your tinfoil hat?

    • Dylan Estes // 2nd Jul 2016 at 4:43 am // Reply

      +Leeloo Fan Ok, so how come the rockets always expel their largest fuel
      source before reaching orbit? Isn’t that the hardest part?

    • Dylan Estes // 2nd Jul 2016 at 4:45 am // Reply

      +Leeloo Fan I am having a hard time believing that a rocket would work with
      absolutely no air. I can not find any experiment on this, help?

    • Leeloo Fan // 2nd Jul 2016 at 6:53 am // Reply

      +Dylan Estes On your question about why rockets “expel their largest fuel
      source before reaching orbit”. Most rockets are used to place satellites or
      other payloads on a stable orbit. The “the hardest part” is actually
      reaching the very large orbital speeds and that is where most of the fuel
      is used.

      On your request of a video of thrust in the vacuum. Here you go from myth
      Brian and others argue that the exhaust gasses increase the pressure inside
      the vaccum chamber and so you have something to push on. However, you can
      clearly see the car moving immediately after ignition before the gas plum
      becomes large. And even after ignition, the gasses produced are not enough
      to increase the pressure inside that big chamber in any significant way.

  11. Shawn Barnish // 11th Jun 2016 at 4:26 am // Reply

    Another flat head that thinks that the almost nothing atmospheric pressure
    that we dwell in is what is “holding the column of air” behind a jet engine
    (or a rocket engine).
    That is so fackin laughable!

    The almost nothing atmospheric pressure we dwell in is NOT the working
    fluid that allows a rocket to have thrust.
    The MASSIVE amount of mass coming out of it is.
    The stream of highly accelerated gases coming out of a rocket will cut
    through the sub 15PSI of atmosphere almost as easily as it can in a total

    It is the accelerated high pressure gases coming out of the rocket that is
    the working fluid, NOT the static atmosphere that it is “pushing against”.

    • Dylan Estes // 9th Jul 2016 at 4:53 am // Reply

      +Peter Galbraith Ummm… Again, if it can not be tested, it must be
      considered a theory. Stop sidestepping.

    • Peter Galbraith // 9th Jul 2016 at 5:22 am // Reply

      Lol. First, you have the definition of theory wrong. Second, you are
      contriving a nearly impossible strawman. Third, we know how propulsion
      works; and because you fail to understand or believe doesn’t put the burden
      of proof back on science. You are the one proposing an alternative
      explanation. It’s up to you to prove it.

      Let me take an extreme example. Someone says that a jet engine painted
      black twice with two coats of grey primer won’t work. You say nonsense. He
      asks has it been tested? You say of course not. So he replies “in theory it
      works anyway, it’s only a theory because you haven’t tested it.”

      You can make up whatever you want to, but that doesn’t make more likely
      than how we already know things work.

    • Dylan Estes // 9th Jul 2016 at 8:02 am // Reply

      +Peter Galbraith I understand that you know very well how propulsion works.
      There is a vast wealth of knowledge on the subject I am sure. However if
      all of your data is based on earth environment, you can not say with
      certainty that the same principles would apply in a completely new
      environment without first testing it in some capacity. I actually believe
      you and am convinced a rocket would most likely work in space.

      That said, I know what a theory is and you could argue with me about
      semantics but at the end of the day it is still a theory.

    • Dylan Estes // 9th Jul 2016 at 8:07 am // Reply

      +Peter Galbraith And as to your hypothetical example.

      1. Painting a jet engine is an easily testable matter so it is in no way
      similar to my inquiry.

      2. What if you turned the engine on and it didn’t work. Wouldn’t your prior
      conception of reality just become an old theory?

    • Peter Galbraith // 9th Jul 2016 at 1:28 pm // Reply

      +Dylan Estes
      Solid fuel rockets are tested in a vacuum. If you managed to compress the
      air you needed for the jet engine and tested it in a vacuum, it wouldn’t be
      very different than a solid fuel rocket. You’d be testing how the engine
      operates in those conditions, not the principles of propulsion.

  12. John Morrison // 22nd Jun 2016 at 4:18 am // Reply

    a rocket is not pushing against anything. It doesn’t PUSH. You moron. That
    is not how propulsion works. What is this world coming to when a complete
    incompetent can stand and make videos refuting the thousands of aerospace
    engineers who have studied and built rockets and jet engines. Anyone
    watching this video who even thinks about taking this guy seriously is
    seriously stupid.

  13. John Morrison // 22nd Jun 2016 at 4:41 am // Reply

    it’s not space that sucks. It is YOU

    • Leeloo Fan // 10th Jul 2016 at 6:35 pm // Reply

      +Andrew Lucero Jr. Maybe your brain is already mush for lack of use. The
      pressure in space is almost zero, not negative. The concept of absolute gas
      pressure being negative is just an impossibility. Stop calling people
      stupid because you are just embarrassing yourself.

  14. Rion Clark // 27th Jun 2016 at 8:06 am // Reply

    Does gravity exist?

  15. Peter Galbraith // 7th Jul 2016 at 2:28 am // Reply

    So sad to see a civil engineer get basic physics so wrong, and yet people
    believe him because “he’s an engineer”.

    • Peter Galbraith // 10th Jul 2016 at 3:25 pm // Reply

      +Andrew Lucero Jr.

      Yet this “engineer” thinks he is using physics to debunk Earth. He is just
      misunderstanding everything, and misusing it. Can’t have it both ways.

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 3:40 pm // Reply

      +Peter Galbraith you’re right, either the math works or it doesn’t. so show
      your work.

    • Peter Galbraith // 10th Jul 2016 at 4:07 pm // Reply

      +Andrew Lucero Jr.

      I have plenty of comments elsewhere. Not jumping through hoops for you.

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 7:46 pm // Reply

      +Peter Galbraith that’s what I thought homo

    • Peter Galbraith // 10th Jul 2016 at 8:57 pm // Reply

      Ha ha. You just proved to me what kind of intolerant moron you are.

  16. Rab Downunder // 8th Jul 2016 at 12:24 am // Reply

    Space does NOT suck!
    The pressure is NOT negative, but almost ZERO!
    Go back to school.

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 2:29 pm // Reply

      nasa calls space a vacuum. what does a vacuum do?

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 2:29 pm // Reply

      Oh I forgot, vacuums create pressure at almost zero. you fucking dolt.

    • Leeloo Fan // 10th Jul 2016 at 6:28 pm // Reply

      +Andrew Lucero Jr. Before you call somebody stupid do a a little bit of
      research or it might backfire on you. It this case it did. Look for the the
      scientific definition of vacuum in a dictionary:
      “Vacuum, Space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so
      low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being
      carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure
      and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal).” From Encyclopedia

      If you think that what scientists call vacuum relates to a “vacuum cleaner”
      then you need to go back to basics. Given that you didn’t even try to
      search for the etymology of “vacuum” which comes from the Latin for “empty
      space,” right in line with the way scientists use it, tells me that you are
      just blindly following some conspiracy believers without thinking.

      So, yes in space the pressure is almost zero and space does not suck.

  17. So you said that you COULD move in space if you carried bullets and
    gunpowder into space and shot them outwards…So what if we just replaced
    part of the lead in the bullet with a water “core”, so to speak. That would
    still work, right? Then what if instead of having any lead, the bullet was
    just frozen water, that would still work right? It would just be a lighter
    bullet. So what if we replaced that frozen water with liquid water, that
    would still work, right? The bullet just wouldn’t stay together very well
    after we shot it out of our gun barrel. So then what if we replaced the
    liquid water bullet with a gaseous water bullet (water vapor). Why
    shouldn’t it work?

    • Andrew Lucero Jr. // 10th Jul 2016 at 2:34 pm // Reply

      because with gas or liquid the mass wouldn’t control the expkosion, it
      would shoot right through the water for a significant reduced if any
      reaction at all.the explosive force isn’t enough to break surface tension
      on the metal bullet. but will break the surface tension of water or gas.

  18. Peter Galbraith // 13th Jul 2016 at 4:39 am // Reply

    3min30s The weight of the atmosphere. So at least this Flat Earther
    believes in gravity.

    He doesn’t have a clue how propulsion works, but at least he believes in

    c’mon flat Earthers! Set him straight! lol

  19. Rob Appleby // 13th Jul 2016 at 6:44 am // Reply

    Rocket propusion does not work by applying force to a resisting medium
    (like pushing with your feet on the tarmac when you’re on a skateboard) –
    it works by expelling (accelerating) mass out of the rocket nozzle – F =
    ma, bingo, you have your propulsion.

    You seem like a nice guy, but you’re so lacking in the basics it’s tragic.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Share This