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

You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?

BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.

Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?

It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...

So what is it, Cultists?

Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.

The "recoil force" of a gun and the propulsion force of a rocket use the same principle, Newton's 3rd law. A gun is one and done while a rocket is continuous. I also will add you don't believe in "recoil force". What you believe is the bullet and spent gunpowder push off the air and cause recoil.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2015, 08:09:36 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 23, 2015, 02:24:53 AM

A
When a rocket (object A) ignites its exhaust, it creates an ACTION; what, then, does it REACT against?

The exhaust reacts against the rocket.  You idiot.

LOL!!!

ROFL!!!

LOLOLOLOLO!!!

It was already determined that the exhaust is part of the rocket until it leaves the nozzle. So you are saying the rocket pushes itself. Which as any idiot knows is impossible. If you don't believe it, try as Legba has said. Lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoes.

Agreed. The nozzle restricts flow thus speeding up the exhaust. Once the exhaust leaves the nozzle the equal and opposite force comes into play and accelerated the rocket.

Thank you, hoppy; you have clearly been following the entire thread in a rational manner & come to a logical conclusion.

Do not be deflected by all the schills, schmucks & herberts infesting this place; rocketry is not a complex matter.

They work by pushing on the medium upon which they travel, same as every single other thing in Creation that produces motion does.

It is all very simple, no matter what the sci-fi cultists claim...

Now; watch them Howl, like dogs in the night barking at a noise they cannot comprehend...

Like sock-arul; a deluded & raving liar to the bitter end.

Thank you, hoppy; you have clearly been following the entire thread in a rational manner & come to a logical conclusion.

Do not be deflected by all the schills, schmucks & herberts infesting this place; rocketry is not a complex matter.

They work by pushing on the medium upon which they travel, same as every single other thing in Creation that produces motion does.

It is all very simple, no matter what the sci-fi cultists claim...

Now; watch them Howl, like dogs in the night barking at a noise they cannot comprehend...

Like sock-arul; a deluded & raving liar to the bitter end.

Another post that does not address anything. You really should just admit defeat. It will save us all time. You clearly have no proper rebuttal and instead just spew random crap.

My post addressed EVERYTHING, sock-arul.

& 'a proper rebuttal' to WHAT, exactly?

The FACT that gas molecules can be compressed, with all that implies?

Strain at your leash & Howl away, unthinking dog; nobody cares what your brainless barking means anyway...

You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion;

Nope.  Rocket propulsion is a recoil force.

... if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?

Yes, that's why you see exhaust go down and rockets go up (as in the opposite direction of down).  The exhaust interacting with the atmosphere is a separate action/reaction from the exhaust's action/reaction interaction with the rocket. 

BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.

Umm... No.  Rocket exhaust is no more connected to a rocket than water is connected to a fire hose.

Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.

Then you need to look closer, because that isn't what's happening at all.

Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.

See how it works yet?

The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...

Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.

See how it works yet?

The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 23, 2015, 08:08:29 AM

You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?

BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.

Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?

It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...

So what is it, Cultists?

Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.

The exhaust is travelling backwards from the rocket like a bullet shot by a gun (bullets shot by a gun also follows newtons third law. The recoil is the reaction for the action of shooting the bullet).



That exhaust is definately NOT staying with the rocket.

There you go. Evidence.

markjo/mikeman v2.0; admit it; you are broken.

Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.

See how it works yet?

The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...

Where is your evidence? You can't even explain your claims.

Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.

First of all, I've provided at least as much evidence as you have.  Secondly, socks are only weird when worn with sandals.

See how it works yet?

Yes, I can see quite clearly that you have no interest whatsoever in having a civil discussion.

The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...

Whatever.

Sock-arul: liar.

Markjo: ditto.

Care to provide any evidence for your claims?

After all, if I'm so crazy it should be easy...

So: you claim a rocket 'pushes on itself'; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!

Sock-arul: liar.

Markjo: ditto.

Care to provide any evidence for your claims?

After all, if I'm so crazy it should be easy...

So: you claim a rocket 'pushes on itself'; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!

No, the exhaust pushes the rocket:

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 23, 2015, 11:15:40 AM

Markjo: DISMISSED for providing no evidence as well as being a PROVEN sock-using weirdo.

See how it works yet?

The bonfire of your vanities is in progress...

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 23, 2015, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 23, 2015, 08:08:29 AM

You are confusing Recoil Force with rocket propulsion; if the exhaust really were Object B in a Newton 3 scenario, then it would have to SEPARATE FROM & THEN CONTINUE IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO the rocket; just like the bullet of a gun does, yes?

BUT IT DOES NOT; it is clearly connected to, & travelling with, the rocket at all times.

Thus, simple observation tells us that the exhaust IS PART OF OBJECT A.

WHAT, THEN, IS THE OBJECT B NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEWTON 3?

It MUST be something EXTRINSIC to object A...

So what is it, Cultists?

Oh, & please provide physical evidence for your answer; if you do not you will be dismissed.

The exhaust is travelling backwards from the rocket like a bullet shot by a gun (bullets shot by a gun also follows newtons third law. The recoil is the reaction for the action of shooting the bullet).



That exhaust is definately NOT staying with the rocket.

There you go. Evidence.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Are you blind? No offense.

The exhaust is definately flying out of the rocket.

Wrong.

Not Wrong

So: you claim a rocket 'pushes on itself'; EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!

No, that isn't what I claim.  I claim that the rocket's exhaust is pushing against the rocket. 

Think about it this way:  If you inflate a balloon, is the air in the balloon a part of the balloon or is the air a separate object contained within the balloon?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available
Once again I will post this video. As you can see in the video the guy has a medicinball and starts to throw it. He accelerates the ball, which requires a force. Newton's thrid law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as you can see, the ball also imparts a force on the guy. When the ball is released, the both move in opposite directions.

This video is all the evidence anyone needs.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available
Once again I will post this video. As you can see in the video the guy has a medicinball and starts to throw it. He accelerates the ball, which requires a force. Newton's thrid law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as you can see, the ball also imparts a force on the guy. When the ball is released, the both move in opposite directions.

This video is all the evidence anyone needs.

Or this one for the ones that don't understand momentum:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2015, 01:18:56 PM

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available
Once again I will post this video. As you can see in the video the guy has a medicinball and starts to throw it. He accelerates the ball, which requires a force. Newton's thrid law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as you can see, the ball also imparts a force on the guy. When the ball is released, the both move in opposite directions.

This video is all the evidence anyone needs.

Or this one for the ones that don't understand momentum:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Well that just ended this thread.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

This is a bit corny,  but the science is accurate.

Super videos. I was amazed at them all. WOW......JUST WOW.

Anyway now that the excitement's died down, can anyone of you explain how a N.A.S.A space rocket works, instead of showing people on skateboards throwing and catching balls or dipshits pumping air and water into rocket shaped objects.
You see, what Papa is asking you. All you tefal headed supposed rocket scientists - is - HOW DO YOUR SPACE ROCKETS WORK.
This means that you would be best explaining how a small combustion chamber manages to vertically propel a rocket into space.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.

Now here's the key to this. You have to try and understand what 3000 tonnes would be like.
Remember that the silly scientist trying to show you his little water rocket. Do you notice it doesn't have a combustion chamber or any chamber at all?
Air forcing water out into atmosphere. Air under pressure forcing dense water out into less dense air which compresses the less dense air into a resistant barrier to that water and that is what the rocket is using to move vertically.
There is nothing inside that water rocket that can propel it.

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.

Lots and lots of fuel moving very very fast.

More fuel + more fast = more up

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

Conservation of Momentum,   look it up.    Momentum equals mass times velocity.   Mass is a scalar,  velocity is a vector,   a scalar times a vector is a vector,  momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction.   The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.   

Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon,  in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy,   or deep in outer space it's still the same.   Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.

You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder,   whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that,  but  physics will win every time.   You can't beat it.  You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.   
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2015, 02:53:54 AM

How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.

Lots and lots of fuel moving very very fast.

More fuel + more fast = more up

You need to put a bit more effort in. No wonder people can't grasp it. You haven't a clue how it really works. You are happy to be duped with explanations that do not make any sense when thought about clearly for 5 minutes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2015, 02:53:54 AM

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

Conservation of Momentum,   look it up.    Momentum equals mass times velocity.   Mass is a scalar,  velocity is a vector,   a scalar times a vector is a vector,  momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction.   The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.   

Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon,  in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy,   or deep in outer space it's still the same.   Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.

You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder,   whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that,  but  physics will win every time.   You can't beat it.  You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.

What's your vector, Victor. 
Geoff, you appear to live off vector and scalar and yet it still means nothing with your big space rockets.
Conservation of momentum is fine as long as you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 24, 2015, 03:11:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2015, 02:53:54 AM

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

Conservation of Momentum,   look it up.    Momentum equals mass times velocity.   Mass is a scalar,  velocity is a vector,   a scalar times a vector is a vector,  momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction.   The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.   

Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon,  in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy,   or deep in outer space it's still the same.   Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.

You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder,   whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that,  but  physics will win every time.   You can't beat it.  You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.

What's your vector, Victor. 
Geoff, you appear to live off vector and scalar and yet it still means nothing with your big space rockets.
Conservation of momentum is fine as long as you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

I shudder to ask,  but what is the sceptimatic version of conservation of momentum?

Quote from: Rayzor on July 24, 2015, 03:11:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 24, 2015, 02:53:54 AM

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

Conservation of Momentum,   look it up.    Momentum equals mass times velocity.   Mass is a scalar,  velocity is a vector,   a scalar times a vector is a vector,  momentum is a vector it has magnitude and direction.   The momentum of the exhaust is exactly equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket.   


Doesn't matter if the rocket is on the moon,  in orbit around mars, or on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy,   or deep in outer space it's still the same.   Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity times rocket mass.

You can cry on Papa Legba's shoulder,   whimper to Legion and Hoppy about fake this and that,  but  physics will win every time.   You can't beat it.  You don't have a Papa Legba left to stand on.

What's your vector, Victor. 
Geoff, you appear to live off vector and scalar and yet it still means nothing with your big space rockets.
Conservation of momentum is fine as long as you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

He knows what he is talking about. You obviously don't. Imagine the guy on the skateboard is the rocket and the ball is the exhaust. If the exhaust is more massive (a more massive ball) and has higher momentum (Throw the ball harder) the rocket goes faster (The guy goes back further and with more speed) and vice versa. if you would bring a lot of balls with you on a low-friction vehicle, like a skateboard, you could propell yourself by throwing the balls behind you. That is what the rocket is doing - throwing the exhaust behind itself to propell forwards.

Super videos. I was amazed at them all. WOW......JUST WOW.

Anyway now that the excitement's died down, can anyone of you explain how a N.A.S.A space rocket works, instead of showing people on skateboards throwing and catching balls or dipshits pumping air and water into rocket shaped objects.
You see, what Papa is asking you. All you tefal headed supposed rocket scientists - is - HOW DO YOUR SPACE ROCKETS WORK.
This means that you would be best explaining how a small combustion chamber manages to vertically propel a rocket into space.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.

Already explained. It's works off of Newton's third law. It takes a force to accelerate the exhaust so an equal and opposite force accelerates the rocket.

Now here's the key to this. You have to try and understand what 3000 tonnes would be like.
Remember that the silly scientist trying to show you his little water rocket. Do you notice it doesn't have a combustion chamber or any chamber at all? Air forcing water out into atmosphere. Air under pressure forcing dense water out into less dense air which compresses the less dense air into a resistant barrier to that water and that is what the rocket is using to move vertically.

Notice how water rockets work better than air rockets? They need the mass of the water to provide more lift than air.  Your explanation is just gibberish.

There is nothing inside that water rocket that can propel it.

So it takes of just sitting there empty?

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

Hoe does a force get transferred from an exhaust molecule hitting air to the rocket? You still cannot answer this.

Anyway now that the excitement's died down, can anyone of you explain how a N.A.S.A space rocket works, instead of showing people on skateboards throwing and catching balls or dipshits pumping air and water into rocket shaped objects.

But those videos explain the very principles that make space rockets work. 

This means that you would be best explaining how a small combustion chamber manages to vertically propel a rocket into space.

By using Newton's third law as explained in those videos that you don't seem to like.

How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a 3000 tonne rocket. No it's not a mistake. I'll repeat.
How does a combustion chamber manage to ignite a mix of fuel and oxygen from a pump to push up a THREE THOUSAND TONNE rocket.

Well, you get a big tank of liquid oxygen and a big tank of kerosene and get some large, powerful pumps to send the liquid oxygen and kerosene through some pipes to 5 very large rocket engines where they are mixed together and some big spark plugs ignite the mix.

Now here's the key to this. You have to try and understand what 3000 tonnes would be like.
Remember that the silly scientist trying to show you his little water rocket. Do you notice it doesn't have a combustion chamber or any chamber at all?

That's because they aren't burning the water.  The action/reaction principle is exactly the same, however.

Air forcing water out into atmosphere. Air under pressure forcing dense water out into less dense air which compresses the less dense air into a resistant barrier to that water and that is what the rocket is using to move vertically.

In an open system, like the atmosphere, less dense air isn't compressed by more dense water, it's displaced (moved out of the way).

There is nothing inside that water rocket that can propel it.

Yes there is.  It's the mass of the water being quickly pushed out through a small opening at the end of the bottle.

Those  that can see the truth of it, I commend you. Those who can't or won't - I feel sorry for you. Those who are here to arrogantly try to keep the lie going, you are worthless.

Apparently you don't realize that we feel the exact same way about you.