LOL!!!
Sooo many big words, but not a single shred of evidence amongst them.
Not a single simple experiment to prove your point.
Just pompous, supercilious pseudo-science.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">'non-inertial frame of reference...'
LMAO!!!
Since the rocket is accelerating, the frame of reference isnt inertial. You knew that, right? Newton's first only applies to inertial frames.
The exhaust is NOT 'body B', Conker, you sneaky old con-man - it is part of 'body A', i.e. the rocket itself.
Did you REALLY think you'd sneak THAT one past me?!?
ROFLMAO!!!
It actually is. The whole principle behind rocketry is body A splitting in two bodies, body B, and body C. We call the exhaust body B
n (since the exhaust is a multitude of particles, which act as different bodies, but we can simplify considering them as a group of particles, just as any body), and the remaining rocket body C. The amount of momentum in bodies C and B is conserved, since they both are an explosion of body A. Since bodies B
n are (in total) much less massive than body C, body C will gain speed. Your question also asked how could a rocket go faster than it's exhaust. Simple: it doesn't. Move the frame of reference to the point of ignition, and keep it inertial on the original trajectory and speed of the vehicle. If there was no thrust, then, the exhaust and the rocket would be at the same speed 0, even if it was moving with respect to, for example, the ground (we assume the rocket was initially inertial). Since we do have thrust, the exhaust and the rocket will gain speed, with the exhaust going faster than the rocket (with respect to this frame of reference). Derivate this momentum exhange over time? You get Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation#Derivation. If you find a flaw of the derivation of such an equation (which comes directly from Newton's second), I suggest you write a paper and contact NASA and the Nobel prize administration, since you would have all in your favor to be the world's next Nobel in Physics.
The rest of your post is the usual blend of lies, bluffing & blah that you lot always come out with.
Like 'conservation of momentum'; until we establish exactly how Newton's 3rd applies to NASA's rocketry model then all talk of momentum is moot.
Why do you put conservation of momentum in quotes? Do you disbelieve conservation of momentum? Anyway, read the wikipedia page (I know, I know, but you have to accept the basics to build towards the more complex things, of course) I provided you, and tell me what you disbelieve about it.
& you know this, too; so knock it off, ok, you crook.
I beg to differ, your honor.
You have NOT proved that a rocket can accelerate past the maximum velocity of its exhaust, because it CAN'T.
Because of Newton's 3rd Law.
Newton's third only speaks of forces, not of speeds. Again, I agree that it is not possible for something to go faster than it's exhaust. You are using speeds wrong in this case, though. There is no maximum velocity (we aren't no where near relativistic territory here, so we will use Newtonian physics. In Newtonian physics, there is no maximum velocity at all. Light was assumed to be infinitelly fast by many on his era, and I
think, im not sure, that Newton did as well.) for the exhaust to go at. When we talk about exhaust maximum velocity, we are talking about a frame of reference stuck to the rocket. If we consider the rocket to be at rest, then how fast can the exhaust go WITH RESPECT TO THE NOZZLE? That is an important piece of data, since it allows us to know the maximum amount of kinetic energy per unit of propellant the engine can provide, and because of this it is included in Tsiolkovsky's. However, it also limits the usefulness of the equation, since forces such as gravitation can and will affect the speed of the exhaust. That's why actually it is usually used in the specific impulse form.
Oh - you were all mad keen on Newton's 3rd a few pages back, weren't you?
But now you know it DOES NOT support your sci-fi gibberish you're all spamming 'conservation of momentum'...
Pathetic!
Conservation of momentum is a consequence of the third law, so, yeah, I'm keen of supporting Newton's third, as long as we are talking Classical physics. If you want to take Einstein's relativity into account, that's fine, but I'm not a physicist and I refuse to make such calculus, I work enough already.
I have given evidence that the performance of firework rockets IN NO WAY RESEMBLES that of NASA's silly 'space-rockets'.
Such as?
Whereas you have spammed out an already debunked FALSE ANALOGY & a lot of smokescreen-like verbiage about bloody cannons, POV's, Galileo, simple environments, etc, all of which amounted to exactly NOTHING.
Actually, POV (more accuratelly frames of reference) are the basis itself of Newtonian physics. When Im on a car, as long as the speed is constant, I can bounce a ball, and know that it will bounce back at my hand. If the car turns (suffers an acceleration), then the ball will not. Inertialty of frames of reference is one of the basis of Newtonian physics, yet you don't seem to understand them.
What a farce...
Oh, & I note that you, too, avoided all mention of Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum...
I wonder why?
Because rockets aren't jet engines, and atmospheric pressure only affects the effective velocity of the exhaust. Since I'm assuming we already know that speed, then the particular complex flow of propellant in a vacuum isnt relevant. If you want, then ok, do the FEA yourself.
But keep going, all of you; because the more that you drag this simple subject into la-la land, the more convinced neutral readers will be that you have NO idea what you are talking about, & are simply making shit up as you go along in order to hide the truth.
& that is LOL!!!
Ok friend.
P.s. Rayzor/Evil Edna: obvious LOL-Troll Is obvious!!!
Ok friend.