It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Is the velocity of the shuttle's exhaust 10.000 mph or not?
Cos if it is, then Newton 3 takes care of the rest...

That's neither a yes or a no.
Is velocity a force?

Why?

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 26, 2015, 12:50:53 PM

Is the velocity of the shuttle's exhaust 10.000 mph or not?
Cos if it is, then Newton 3 takes care of the rest...

That's neither a yes or a no.
Is velocity a force?

there are questions that you can't answer with yes or no you evil woman

Why?

Yes or no. Not why. Just answer the question, and you'll see.

No.

I will not answer you pointless question.

& LOL!!!

I will not answer you pointless question.

It's not pointless.
Ok then, what do you think Newton's Law refers to? Velocities, or forces?

Prove that the  EQUAL & OPPOSITE of 10.000 mph is 17,500 mph & I may start listening to you.

But you can't, so I won't...

Bye, Jane!

LOL!!!"

Prove that the  EQUAL & OPPOSITE of 0

Equal and opposite what? Velocity or force?

Prove that the  EQUAL & OPPOSITE of 10.000 mph is 17,500 mph & I may start listening to you.

But you can't, so I won't...

Bye, Jane!

LOL!!!"

That's easy.  Newton's 3rd law states that forces are equal and opposite, not speeds.  If you had a 10,000 pound object and a 17,500 pound object which pushed off of each other hard enough then the 10,000 pound object would be going 17,500 miles per hour and the 17,500 pound object would be going 10,000 miles per hour.

Also one minor point here Papa;

If the exhaust leave the rocket at 10,000mph it will always be relative to the rocket. So for example if the rocket is going at 17,500mph forward, then the exhaust will be going 7,500mph forward relative to the ground or 10,000mph backwards relative to the rocket.

In any case, you need to read Newtons 3rd carefully. It is about equal and opposite forces. Each exhibit particle exerts a little force on the rocket and accelerates it a tiny bit. The rocket exerts the same force on the particle which accelerated it a lot. Repeat with billions of particles and the net effect is the rocket accelerates a huge amount and releases a lot of exhaust very quickly.

Markjo: a Lawyer is NOT a Scientist; please learn the difference.

  Who said anything about lawyers?

Hmm; seems the maximum exhaust velocity of gunpowder-fuelled rockets, such as fireworks, is 1,300 mph.

& their maximum velocity is little more than 150 mph, making them roughly 10% efficient.

Yet NASA's rockets, with their maximum exhaust velocities of 10,000 mph & maximum velocities of 17,500 mph, are somehow 175% efficient...

Care to explain how?

Simply, please, & in your own words, also providing easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments to support your claims.

As I have done to support mine.

Off you go...

The relative velocity of the exhaust and a rockets final maximum velocity are not a measure of its efficiency. A simple fireworks rocket can be made to travel faster simply by increasing the amount of fuel it carries and thereby the time it spends accelerating and thus reaching a higher final velocity.

A rockets efficiency is measured by the amount of available energy compared to the amount of useful energy. Eg the total energy release of the fuel and oxidiser payload compared the kinetic energy imparted on the rocket.

Observation is the first step in the scientific method.

& from simple observation, we can see that the acceleration of a firework rocket is almost instantaneous.

With further observation we can also see that they do not appear to be gaining much extra velocity the higher they fly either.

Thus, observation suggests that, by the time a firework rocket's fuel runs out, it has already attained maximum velocity.

Which is 150 mph, as compared to an exhaust velocity of 1,300 mph, making them c.10% efficient.

Anyhow; provide simple evidence & experiments please, such as I just provided above, to unlock the mysteries of NASA's magical 175% efficient rockets.

Let's do some SCIENCE!

They're not 175% efficient you halfwit. Rockets are ctually very inefficient in terms of energy conversion.

The exhaust velocity is in relation to the rocket itself ie it is 10,000mph ( or whatever the actual figure is) faster than the rocket at all times.

I beg your pardon?

Care to offer up some evidence or experiments to justify your half-witted gibber-spam?

You know; like I do...

I beg your pardon?

Care to offer up some evidence or experiments to justify your half-witted gibber-spam?

You know; like I do...

Look it's not rocket science. Oh wait, it is. Perhap here is where the problem lies.

The exhaust velocity is determine by the combustion reaction in the Rockets engine system. Assuming a constant 'throttle' the exhaust will always leave the rocket nozzle at the same relative speed to the rocket ( ignoring atmospheric pressure reducing on the way up - this actually increased exhaust velocity).

If the exhaust velocity is constant then the force on the rocket is constant and there acceleration will continue until fuel is depleted and switched off. Therefore maximum velocity is only limited by two things. Fuel supply and speed of light.

Yes, I know that's yours & NASA's theory.

I'm just asking you why simple observation (which is the first step in the scientific method, fyi) of a firework rocket does not support your theory, whilst it does support mine.

& I'm also asking you to provide simple evidence & experiments in support of what you claim.

Which you haven't.

Duly noted.

Yes, I know that's yours & NASA's theory.

I'm just asking you why simple observation (which is the first step in the scientific method, fyi) of a firework rocket does not support your theory, whilst it does support mine.

& I'm also asking you to provide simple evidence & experiments in support of what you claim.

Which you haven't.

Duly noted.

Your simple observation of a firework rocket is incredibly flawed. You cannot measure the velocity and acceleration of a firework by sight. If you can provide actual measurements then great.

Simple evidence and experiments? Every firework ever launched. Every water rocket ever launched. All space flight by multiple nations, agencies and firms. Newtons 3rd applied (correctly) and other basic laws of mechanics.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 27, 2015, 04:00:41 AM

Yes, I know that's yours & NASA's theory.

I'm just asking you why simple observation (which is the first step in the scientific method, fyi) of a firework rocket does not support your theory, whilst it does support mine.

& I'm also asking you to provide simple evidence & experiments in support of what you claim.

Which you haven't.

Duly noted.

Your simple observation of a firework rocket is incredibly flawed. You cannot measure the velocity and acceleration of a firework by sight. If you can provide actual measurements then great.

Simple evidence and experiments? Every firework ever launched. Every water rocket ever launched. All space flight by multiple nations, agencies and firms. Newtons 3rd applied (correctly) and other basic laws of mechanics.

Well why don't you show him where it's incredibly flawed?
He's just shown you the flaws in NASA and affiliate's rockets. so show him where he's wrong by explaining how they manage to go against what Papa has said.

Okay. Give me until July 5th.

Mainframes: LOL!!!

I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.

It also violates Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum, but meh; that's just the icing on the cake...

As for the firework rockets; go buy a few, then set them off & OBSERVE what they do.

You will SEE that the acceleration is almost instantaneous, & that they achieve speeds nowhere near their exhaust velocity of 1,300 mph.

If they did, you would OBSERVE  a sonic boom, would you not?

Further, for you to suggest that we cannot trust our own senses is yet more BRAINWASHING, just like you & your cult-member brethren's constant admonitions to me that because you all keep telling me the same thing, I should just accept it as True, even though all the evidence suggests it is NOT.

Really: STOP TRYING TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE, MAINFRAMES!

& START POSTING EVIDENCE!

OKAY?

lol!

I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.

Does Newton's Third Law apply to forces or velocities?

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 27, 2015, 05:28:39 AM

I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.

Does Newton's Third Law apply to forces or velocities?

Action and equal reaction applies to everything.

*Sigh*
Energy is kept. Velocity, however, isn't. Bounce a ball and see.

Yes, BJ; Newton 3 does deal with forces.

& a mass moving at 10,000 mph creates a force.

Now explain how NASA's rockets can accelerate PAST the maximum velocity of their exhausts by 7,500 mph (cos that's a LOT!).

Simply, in your own words, & providing easily-verifiable evidence & experiments to back up your claims, please.

Misero: *Sigh* That's odd, cos I just tried dropping a medicine ball & it didn't bounce at all...

Enough with the crooked rhetorical tricks, FALSE ANALOGIES & general fail; just start with the SCIENCE, please!

LOL!!!

Mainframes: LOL!!!

I have showed, repeatedly & with simple experimental evidence, that NASA's rocketry model violates Newton's 3rd Law in every way possible.

It also violates Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum, but meh; that's just the icing on the cake...

As for the firework rockets; go buy a few, then set them off & OBSERVE what they do.

You will SEE that the acceleration is almost instantaneous, & that they achieve speeds nowhere near their exhaust velocity of 1,300 mph.

If they did, you would OBSERVE  a sonic boom, would you not?

How did you verify that the exhaust velocity of the firework rockets is 1300 mph?  Did you observe the sonic boom of the exhaust gasses?

Markjo: LOL!!!

I googled a few places & took an average; would you like to offer an alternative number?

Remember how I predicted you'd pull this kinda cheap, crooked stunt with the shuttle exhaust velocity?

Which is why I made YOU state what it was, so you couldn't argue about it.

Yet here we are...

Just LOL!!!

Really, markjo; your utter intellectual dishonesty is an inspiration to all lawyers, everywhere, ever.

Yes, BJ; Newton 3 does deal with forces.
& a mass moving at 10,000 mph creates a force.

Yep. Mass.

Now explain how NASA's rockets can accelerate PAST the maximum velocity of their exhausts by 7,500 mph (cos that's a LOT!).

Because the force is relevant. The force involves speed, but is not exclusively dependent on speed.

Simply, in your own words, & providing easily-verifiable evidence & experiments to back up your claims, please.

What claim? That more mass means more force? Shoot a pea, measure how fast it goes. Get it as fast as possible: measured in mph if possible. Now, get a car to go the same speed. Get hit by the pea, get hit by the car. Which imparts more force?
After all, all that matters here is Newton, as you said. If there is a larger mass going at some speed, the smaller mass will go faster if forces are to be balanced.

If you disagree, please share: where does the excess force go?

Into acceleration & distance travelled.

But the motion of Object B will not exceed the velocity at which it's struck by Object A.

If you disagree then prove it.