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

Mikeman: So; the old 'man on a skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY is all you can come up with for 'evidence'?

You do realise that both sceptimatic & I have debunked this DELIBERATELY FALSE & MISLEADING ANALOGY at least twice already on this thread?

& in any case, even if correct it would NOT prove that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.

Please LEARN TO READ.

Now; I asked you for simple experiments & easily-verified evidence that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.

Which you did not provide.

I suggest this is because you cannot.

Because there are none.

Because it is impossible.

But enough of that; I think it's pretty obvious I've won this round too: the statement 'a rocket cannot exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust' is proven.

So; time to move on.

Now; can you all please decide what the exhaust of a rocket is actually doing?

Does it effect any mass outside the rocket?

If so, by how much?

Is all the thrust created in the combustion chamber/nozzle?

If not, how much thrust does the exhaust contribute when it acts against an outside mass?

Or does the exhaust in fact negate thrust?

None of you seem to have a clear opinion on any of the above questions, yet if we are to move on we will need them clarified.

So: answers please, space-cultists!

Are you ever going to explain how a CO₂ molecule hitting an N₂ molecule can transfer a force in the opposite direction?

What?

No wonder physics was your minor!

If molecules hitting molecules can transfer no force, then what is the point of your 'combustion chamber'?

Or is that NOT made of molecules, somehow?!?

Again I ask: what is WRONG with you?

An experiment to show that a rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
Hook up a rocket to a force gauge. Set off rocket engine. Get a force reading. Now, F=ma, so divide the force by the mass of the rocket to get an acceleration. Now take the exhaust velocity and divide by the acceleration. This should give you the time it takes for the velocity of the rocket to equal the velocity of the exhaust. So then just accelerate longer than that time and thus the rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
 

Conker: your link to 'evidence' leads NOWHERE; all I get is 'about.blank'.
Which sums up both the contents of your posts & your mind neatly...
You liar & con-man.

My bad, edited it. I double url'd. You could have easilly fixed that, but whatever. Check again.
You haven't addressed any of my other points either.

Misero: when you drop a ball, GRAVITY will assist it to gain velocity; do you really not know this?
You idiotic liar & con-man.
What is WRONG with you all?

That's the point.

Now: provide easily-verifiable evidence & simple experiments we can all perform at home to support your claim that a rocket can exceed the maximum velocity of its exhaust.

Didn't you read what I wrote? I proved it already.

P.s. Sokarul: yes, your physics is 'minor'; I agree!

You sound like a diferent kind of minor, yourself.

What?

No wonder physics was your minor!

If molecules hitting molecules can transfer no force, then what is the point of your 'combustion chamber'?

I didn't say it didn't transfer a force, I said it doesn't transfer a force to the rocket, seeing is how the rocket is 5 feet away. So, how does it transfer a force to the rocket?

Or is that NOT made of molecules, somehow?!?

Again I ask: what is WRONG with you?

Your reading comprehension and inability to address people's posts. Does it help you sleep at night by ignoring 99% of people's posts?

Sokarul: so now you want to prove a rocket can exceed the velocity of its exhaust by using a STATIC rocket engine?!?

Yet again: what is WRONG with you??!!??

& as for your last question; there's a clue in the phrase 'exhaust column', should you be even vaguely interested in Truth.

P.s. goodbye, conker; we're done.

You've lied too much; take it elsewhere...

Youtube comment section, maybe?

Sokarul: so now you want to prove a rocket can exceed the velocity of its exhaust by using a STATIC rocket engine?!?

You really can't read can you?

Yet again: what is WRONG with you??!!??

Read the post again.

& as for your last question; there's a clue in the phrase 'exhaust column', should you be even vaguely interested in Truth.

What about it, the column moves away from the rocket. When was the last time a baseball pitcher was hit by the ball moving away from him?

P.s. goodbye, conker; we're done.

You've lied too much; take it elsewhere...

Youtube comment section, maybe?

Everyone uses mulitple quotes to address your posts but you can't do the same.

P.s. goodbye, conker; we're done.

You've lied too much; take it elsewhere...

Youtube comment section, maybe?

Aw, how cute, he can't even read what I wrote, its too sciency! He doesn't like it, so he will ignore my points. Since you couldn't disprove neither of my points, and didn't counterrefute my refutation of yours, I guess we are done with this bullshit. Don't hit your butt with the door on the way out.

conker: LOL!!!

Your posts contained ZERO science; merely 'science-like language'.

Bravo!

Where were the experiments we could all do at home?

Where was the easily-verifiable evidence?

Nowhere, that's where.

But keep telling us you 'won' if it helps you with whatever the hell it is you're trying to do here...

Cos whatever it is, it AIN'T science!

conker: LOL!!!
Your posts contained ZERO science; merely 'science-like language'.
Bravo!
Where were the experiments we could all do at home?

The galillean cannon experiment can be done by everyone with diferent sized bouncy balls. I even remember doing it as a kid, since it was fun to launch balls over my friend's house like that. And that was before I had any sort of physics knowdlege. Just as the notion of a round earth (I had seen ships sink into the ocean).

Where was the easily-verifiable evidence?

I've used Newton's second and third, and derived my conclusions from them. Please note exactly what of my deductive steps is wrong.

But keep telling us you 'won' if it helps you with whatever the hell it is you're trying to do here...

I didn't claimed to have won anything. Scientific debate isnt won. You are simply wrong, and I have demonstrated that. That doesn't mean I'm right, though.

Cos whatever it is, it AIN'T science!

Ok friend

LOL!!!

A rocket has very little in common with a cannon; but you space-cultists just love to compare em, don't you?

What with FALSE ANALOGIES being your bread & butter...

Hey - maybe you spam em because they help you hide exactly what is Object A & Object B in any Newton 3 action-reaction pairing?!?

Oh, noez - say it ain't so!

LOL!!!

Whatever: evidence & experiments please!

Let's do some SCIENCE!

Cos God knows, you done none so far...

LOL!!!

A rocket has very little in common with a cannon; but you space-cultists just love to compare em, don't you?

Recoil works on exactly the same principle.

What with FALSE ANALOGIES being your bread & butter...

Prove them wrong

Hey - maybe you spam em because they help you hide exactly what is Object A & Object B in any Newton 3 action-reaction pairing?!?

I actually explained exactly what is the pairing, man. I don't understand what you mean. Explain yourself.

Whatever: evidence & experiments please!

You keep ignoring the galilean cannon example.

Let's do some SCIENCE!
Cos God knows, you done none so far...

Sure thing, bro. I've probably done way more science than you, but who knows?

conker: firstly; do NOT call me 'bro'.

Or 'friend'.

Secondly: No you haven't.

Where are your simple experiments?

Where is your easily-verifiable evidence?

Nowhere, that's where.

So toodle-pip until you find some!

Hint: WORDS alone constitute neither  'evidence' nor 'experiments'; take note, space-cultists!

conker: firstly; do NOT call me 'bro'.

Or 'friend'.

Secondly: No you haven't.

Where are your simple experiments?

Where is your easily-verifiable evidence?

Nowhere, that's where.

So toodle-pip until you find some!

Hint: WORDS alone constitute neither  'evidence' nor 'experiments'; take note, space-cultists!

Actually, simple derivative work over laws that we both accept is, at least, as good as the original axiom (in this case, Newton's laws). Either you prove my deductions wrong, or you stop accepting the axiom.

A rocket has very little in common with a cannon; but you space-cultists just love to compare em, don't you?

What with FALSE ANALOGIES being your bread & butter...

A cannon kicks back when it fires a projectile forward.  A rocket kicks forward when it fires gas backward.  I don't see this lack of similarity you speak of.

Mikeman;  LOL!!!

Does a rocket fire a shell, whilst firmly affixed to the ground?

You know; like a cannon does?

No.

It does NOT.

Idiot.

Conker: I could not give a flying f**k about your shonky 'deductions'.

& I am sick of telling you this.

'Deductions' are NOT evidence or experiments.

Provide the latter or butt out.

'Brother'...

LOL!!!

Mikeman;  LOL!!!

Does a rocket fire a shell, whilst firmly affixed to the ground?

You know; like a cannon does?

No.

It does NOT.

Idiot.

Conker: I could not give a flying f**k about your shonky 'deductions'.

& I am sick of telling you this.

'Deductions' are NOT evidence or experiments.

Provide the latter or butt out.

'Brother'...

LOL!!!

What a rocket fires may not be solid, but it's still mass.  If a cannon were not firmly attached to the ground when it would go flying like a rocket, that's why they need to be attached to the ground.  Do you agree that if a cannon were attached to the back of a vehicle facing backwards then the vehicle would move forward when the cannon fires?  A rocket does the exact same thing.

LOL!!!

You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?

& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?

But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.

Just LMAO!!!

Idiot.

Like I said, expect some in July.

LOL!!!

You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?

& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?

But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.

Just LMAO!!!

Idiot.

I have built and tested pendulum stands. Rockets are expensive. Do it yourself. Nevertheless, I proved my results via maths. You do accept Tsiolkovsky, right?

LOL!!!

You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?

& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?

But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.

Just LMAO!!!

Idiot.

We already know how rockets work, and thought experiments are how a lot of  technologies start out, including rockets. You're the idiot who is incapable of applying newtons 3rd correctly and somehow thinks it deals with velocity and not force.

LOL!!!

So why can none of you provide me with ANY easily-verifiable evidence or simple experiments that contradict one single claim I make?

& don't say you have, because you ain't.

All you got is 'deductions', 'thought experiments', FALSE F*****G ANALOGIES  & other sundry brain-washing SPAM.

Now beat it until you can do better, losers...

LOL!!!

LOL!!!

So why can none of you provide me with ANY easily-verifiable evidence or simple experiments that contradict one single claim I make?

& don't say you have, because you ain't.

All you got is 'deductions', 'thought experiments', FALSE F*****G ANALOGIES  & other sundry brain-washing SPAM.

Now beat it until you can do better, losers...

LOL!!!

Can you provide me easiliy verifiable evidence that nuclear fission works? Evidence can be hard to replicate. Again, I still don't see your point. No one claims that exhaust will surpass a rocket. I don't understand you at all, but most of the points you make have been addressed. Could you please get to your point already (since you are going to ignore my points, might as well cut to the chase and disprove your central point).

Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

Here is how a rocket can go faster than it's exhaust velocity.

An experiment to show that a rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.
Hook up a rocket to a force gauge. Set off rocket engine. Get a force reading. Now, F=ma, so divide the force by the mass of the rocket to get an acceleration. Now take the exhaust velocity and divide by the acceleration. This should give you the time it takes for the velocity of the rocket to equal the velocity of the exhaust. So then just accelerate longer than that time and thus the rocket can go faster than it's exhaust.

Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.

Let's read Newton's third, shall we?

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.

...

Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.

The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.

Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?

Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS???

First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dv_a and dv_b aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?

Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.

LOL!!!

You do realise that you can easily just go out & BUY some big-ass firework rockets, don't you?

& do some EXPERIMENTS with them, to collect EVIDENCE on how ROCKETS actually work?

But no; you'd rather hang round on the goddamn internet doing 'thought-experiments' involving cannons & skateboards & anything-else-but-a-REAL-bloody-rocket instead.

Just LMAO!!!

Idiot.

I actually built and launched model rockets many times, and I use the rocket equasion to make predictions that have turned out to be very acurite.  What experimentation have you done on rockets?

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.

Let's read Newton's third, shall we?

Quote

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.

...

Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.

Quote

The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.

Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?

Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS???

First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dv_a and dv_b aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?

Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.

Conker, this post is a true work of art, sir.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.

Let's read Newton's third, shall we?

Quote

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.

...

Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.

Quote

The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.

Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?

Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS???

First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dv_a and dv_b aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?

Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.

I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.

Quote from: Conker on June 28, 2015, 03:25:51 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 28, 2015, 02:34:33 PM

Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.

Let's read Newton's third, shall we?

Quote

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.

...

Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.

Quote

The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.

Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |F_a| = |F_b|, then:

m_a * a_a = m_b * a_b

Which means a_a = (m_b * a_b) / m_a

Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?

Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that m_b/m_a is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, a_a = <1 a_b

BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS???

First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dv_a/dt = <1 dv_b/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dv_a and dv_b aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, v_final = v_initial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * t_total.

Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?

Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.

I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.

Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.

The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers.