https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0)
Wow, that is wrong on so many levels. If he was really that messed up, he would probably think that this would work.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-vector-cartoon-of-man-marooned-on-raft-at-sea-because-the-raft-is-becalmed-and-he-has-no-wind-249664576.jpg)
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
There you go; no further explanation needed.
Better stick to your phoney 'occult rituals' in Australia, Mini-Me.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
There you go; no further explanation needed.
Better stick to your phoney 'occult rituals' in Australia, Mini-Me.
So rockets don't need to "push" against anything to be propelled?
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
There you go; no further explanation needed.
Better stick to your phoney 'occult rituals' in Australia, Mini-Me.
So rockets don't need to "push" against anything to be propelled?
That wasn't hard, I'm happy i helped with your understanding of how things can move.
Is this you admitting you're wrong?
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
There you go; no further explanation needed.
Better stick to your phoney 'occult rituals' in Australia, Mini-Me.
So rockets don't need to "push" against anything to be propelled?
That wasn't hard, I'm happy i helped with your understanding of how things can move.
The count is getting rather high and one sided.
Also what do you mean by Inversion?
The count is getting rather high and one sided.OMG DA SOX-PUPPIEZ R GONNER WINN DA VOWTZ OH NOES O WUT WIL I DOEZ??!!1!1?/?!1!1!1???/?//?
It's fine, understanding what Papa means is a hard skill to master, and a big waste of time.
But I could be wrong, at one point Papa said that Newtons third law requires a third object to transfer the force, so he could have been annoyed that you didn't mention the third object in your explanation. We can't tell what is going on in Papa's head, we can only guess.
We have the reading and writing hotline in Australia for adults who struggle with writing and comprehension, even has a catchy jingle, call one three, double o, six triple five o six.
I think it's because you said rockets don't need to push on anything, they do, you just said that Newtons third law always involves two objects.
But anyway rockets do push on something, the exhaust gas that comes out at high velocity, but Papa believes that gas can't have a force applied to it when it is surrounded by a vacuum, something about it stopping existence?
at one point Papa said that Newtons third law requires a third object to transfer the force
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
"Pretty simple stuff..." Yup, this rockety stuff is pretty simple stuff! It's not rocket science is it?We have the reading and writing hotline in Australia for adults who struggle with writing and comprehension, even has a catchy jingle, call one three, double o, six triple five o six.
Oh look an Australian shill is stealing my jokes again.
How very satanic of it!I think it's because you said rockets don't need to push on anything, they do, you just said that Newtons third law always involves two objects.
But anyway rockets do push on something, the exhaust gas that comes out at high velocity, but Papa believes that gas can't have a force applied to it when it is surrounded by a vacuum, something about it stopping existence?
So much fail...at one point Papa said that Newtons third law requires a third object to transfer the force
Yet more fail...
*Yawn!*
Anyhoo; at least READ what you spam, eh, shills?
Look:Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Pretty simple stuff...
I understand it perfectly; not my fault that you don't.
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
Another of these "force pairs": A rocket ejects mass out the back and the force required to do that pushes the rocket forward
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Another of these "force pairs": A rocket ejects mass out the back and the force required to do that pushes the rocket forward
LOL!!!
You've told us your little bed-time story, Geoff...
I understand it perfectly
It's just that you clearly don't
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
I'm really upsetting you arent I?
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Papa "can't make a proper rebuttal" Legba strikes again.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Can everyone please stop? Legba wants attention
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Can everyone please stop? Legba wants attention
Said all the panicking shills, always, one after the other like fucking lemmings, all the time, almost like they planned it...
Meanwhile, here is Newton's 3rd Law, a thing you will need to 'rebut' & 'debunk' (lol JREF word!) if you wish to hazz shpayze-shippzez:Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
How's the vote going btw?
Cos a poll started by a satanist on a flat earth forum carries a LOT of weight with normal people, you know!
Do you really think that a gun fired in a vacuum will have no recoil?
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Yes, the results of your Satanic Mini-Majesty's poll will impress a lot of people I'm sure.
Meanwhile, back to good old Sir Isaac:Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
I have no idea what that means and how it relates to action/reaction force pairs in an atmosphere or vacuum.
Do you?
15 to one says you dont.I'm struggling to work out who voted "yes", any ideas?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0)Now tell me, why do you think your statement there is not wrong? If you already said it (which I can't see where), you can say it again if you really know. But you know what, how about don't, and show us how to troll properly and keep on trolling.
From Legba's post on the other thread:
"First question: how can you push on nothing?"
If "pushing on something" helps you understand what is happening, here's how:
The rocket is not "pushing" on the vacuum, it's "pushing" on its fuel, that is ejected as it combusts.
There you go, thread over. Legba doesn't understand Newton's 3rd law, but hopefully after that he does.
Cool story, but it seems to be in accordance with the dictates of Newton's 2nd alone than with the following:
Is that related to the Newton's 2nd law of motion? In some sense maybe, yes. Is it just to the related to the Newton's 2nd law of motion? No,
Is that related to the Newton's 2nd law of motion? In some sense maybe, yes. Is it just to the related to the Newton's 2nd law of motion? No,
LOL!!!
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
I understand the above perfectly.
Do you?
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions! ...
I understand the above perfectly.
Honestly I believe he is struggling on the concept that a rocket can contain more than one object to interact with.
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects. Kinda makes sense if you're four years old.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere? I'm not a rocket scientist so you don't need to do the thrust and lift equations, just the general concept?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Clever boy!Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Yes:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
I understand the above perfectly.
Do you?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Clever boy!Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?I have absolutely no idea so I'll copy and paste your OP
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Clever boy!Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?I have absolutely no idea so I'll copy and paste your OP
I can't believe I nailed it hahaha, it's worse than i thought.
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Clever boy!Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?I have absolutely no idea so I'll copy and paste your OP
I can't believe I nailed it hahaha, it's worse than i thought.
By keep on copying and pasting Newton's third law Papa will probably get it eventually. But I hope he won't, it's more fun this way ;D
Papa's probably gonna post another copy of Newton's third law.
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
15 to one says you dont.Ahem.
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
If you lot are so clever why did you post this thread in 'Flat Earth Debate' when it has nothing to do with either?One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Clever boy!Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Yes
15 to one says you dont.Ahem.
17
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Papa's probably gonna post another copy of Newton's third law.
LOL!!!
What's the thread about you dick?
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
We believe in you mate.
What's the thread about you dick?yet still on topic at the same time.
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.
it's all wrong. it's all man-made. is shit.
they stole NIKOLA TESLA WORK.
HE WAS THE MAN.
EVERYTHING'S ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC.
WE'LL WIN, GOD WILL WIN, OUR POSITIVE ENERGY WILL CHANGE THE WORLD.
WE ARE POSITIVE, WE GO NORTH, THE POSITIVE CENTRE, GOD.
NORTH POLE AND THE NORTH STAR: OUR FIXED GUIDE IN OUR WANDERING ON EARTH AND LIFE.
YOU GO SOUTH, THE NEGATIVE SIDE, DAMNATION, DEATH. LOVE IS LIFE AND LIFE IS GOD.
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.
it's all wrong. it's all man-made. is shit.
they stole NIKOLA TESLA WORK.
HE WAS THE MAN.
EVERYTHING'S ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC.
WE'LL WIN, GOD WILL WIN, OUR POSITIVE ENERGY WILL CHANGE THE WORLD.
WE ARE POSITIVE, WE GO NORTH, THE POSITIVE CENTRE, GOD.
NORTH POLE AND THE NORTH STAR: OUR FIXED GUIDE IN OUR WANDERING ON EARTH AND LIFE.
YOU GO SOUTH, THE NEGATIVE SIDE, DAMNATION, DEATH. LOVE IS LIFE AND LIFE IS GOD.
Whats the bet this guy watched a few youtube documentarys and thats the extent of his education on the matter.
Have you read electric universe?
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.
Done
We believe in you mate.
Good.
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.
it's all wrong. it's all man-made. is shit.
they stole NIKOLA TESLA WORK.
HE WAS THE MAN.
EVERYTHING'S ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC.
WE'LL WIN, GOD WILL WIN, OUR POSITIVE ENERGY WILL CHANGE THE WORLD.
WE ARE POSITIVE, WE GO NORTH, THE POSITIVE CENTRE, GOD.
NORTH POLE AND THE NORTH STAR: OUR FIXED GUIDE IN OUR WANDERING ON EARTH AND LIFE.
YOU GO SOUTH, THE NEGATIVE SIDE, DAMNATION, DEATH. LOVE IS LIFE AND LIFE IS GOD.
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
I understand the above perfectly.Shitspamming the same copypasta over and over again does not indicate an understanding of anything other than the copy/paste functions.
I understand the above perfectly.Shitspamming the same copypasta over and over again does not indicate an understanding of anything other than the copy/paste functions.
But I thought you autists liked repetitive behaviour?
Legba's trying to keep this thread a safe space for you & prevent seizures, screaming fits etc...
Such ingrates.
According to Legba, I have more personalities than Sybil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_%28book%29).I understand the above perfectly.Shitspamming the same copypasta over and over again does not indicate an understanding of anything other than the copy/paste functions.
Did you know that according to Legba we are the same person?
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
93 more times, keep going, you can do it.
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
You ran out of "witty" comebacks?
This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
You don't understand either N1 or N2, so you'll never understand N3...
Meanwhile:This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw...
But you can keep replying if you like?
And if you lot are so clever why did you post this thread in 'Flat Earth Debate' when it has nothing to do with either?One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Clever boy!Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
Yes:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
I understand the above perfectly.
Do you?
Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
When you are incapable of a rebuttal, shitpost. Isn't that right papa little baby?Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
LMFAO!!!
Do you do this shit on purpose?
What a clown.
Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
LMFAO!!!
Do you do this shit on purpose?
What a clown.
What's the thread about you dick?
You still have not answered the question.Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
LMFAO!!!
Do you do this shit on purpose?
What a clown.
You still have not answered the question.Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
LMFAO!!!
Do you do this shit on purpose?
What a clown.
Are you a bird? Parroting the law, does not demonstrate the understanding of it. Show us your understanding, by giving us an example of the law in action.
Two new replies whilst I was typing this one?
Don't be so obvious in your desperation, losers.
When you are incapable of a rebuttal, shitpost. Isn't that right papa little baby?Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
LMFAO!!!
Do you do this shit on purpose?
What a clown.
Newton’s first law of motion
In your car,You have an open cup of coffee, in the coffee holder, the car is moving, You step on the break hard, ???
Messy messy messy.
Newton's second law of motion.
You are in your car, you step on the gas pedal, and you move back into the seat, the more gas that you add, the further back you go.
LMFAO!!!
Do you do this shit on purpose?
What a clown.
Two new replies whilst I was typing this one?You just "lurve" skateboards I hear:
Don't be so obvious in your desperation, losers.
I see that you are dodging the question.
To me this proves that you do not understand newtons laws.
I see that you are dodging the question.
To me this proves that you do not understand newtons laws.
I am not.
To me this proves you are a blind retard.
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
Buba Legbone appears to be running out of steam.
Enjoying yourself there, Mr. Howard Beale?
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?
The steam would remain
Buba Legbone appears to be running out of steam.
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?The steam would remain
LMFAO!!!
Comedy Gold...
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?The steam would remain
LMFAO!!!
Comedy Gold...
Where does the steam go then Papa?
The answer to this question and others could be known to you
through casual education.
Count things on your fingers kind of stuff.
Are you saying the steam dissappears?
To Infinity...
But not Beyond!
Are you saying the steam dissappears?
No, slow-poke, I am not.
But I am saying your ability to spell the word 'disappears' has disappeared...
Seems like a violation of conservation of literacy to me.
How thrillingly Satanic of you!
What, the kind of 'casual education' that makes you lot think a rocket is somehow two separate objects?Apparently the notion that one object can be made up of and/or contain a number of separate objects seems to be too advanced a concept for Papa Legba to grasp.
still Dodging the question and misdirecting,I see that you are dodging the question.
To me this proves that you do not understand newtons laws.
I am not.
To me this proves you are a blind retard.
Buba Legbone appears to be running out of steam.
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?
Plus lol.Enjoying yourself there, Mr. Howard Beale?
You can try answering the above too if you like, Rainman?
Should be good for a laugh...
Or you could tell us if you like cats instead?
Apparently the notion that one object can be made up of and/or contain a number of separate objects seems to be too advanced a concept for Papa Legba to grasp.
One rocket, one object, Newtons third law says it's an interaction between two objects.
Papa, can you explain to me how rockets work in our atmosphere?
So you agree that the pressure of the exhaust gasses pushing against the walls of the rocket engine's combustion chamber constitutes a force pair?Apparently the notion that one object can be made up of and/or contain a number of separate objects seems to be too advanced a concept for Papa Legba to grasp.
Why do you lot post things then refuse to comprehend them?
Read the definition of N3 below & see if you can find where your silly little cavil has been addressed...
Couldn't find him so you changed the subject, did you?Newton's third law, and your lack of understanding of it, is the subject, in case you forgot.
Apparently the notion that one object can be made up of and/or contain a number of separate objects seems to be too advanced a concept for Papa Legba to grasp.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
So you agree that the pressure of the exhaust gasses pushing against the walls of the rocket engine's combustion chamber constitutes a force pair?
Tire acts against road, road reacts against tire. Exhaust gasses act against rocket engine, rocket engine reacts against exhaust gasses.
Yes, because it's the correct way.Tire acts against road, road reacts against tire. Exhaust gasses act against rocket engine, rocket engine reacts against exhaust gasses.
That's the way you interpret N3?
No it isn't.Of course it is. As you like to point out, Force = pressure x area. Well, the pressure of burning fuel and oxidizer pushes against the surface area of the combustion chamber resulting in a force. Sounds like a force pairing to me.
"Exhaust stacking"
the pressure of burning fuel and oxidizer pushes against the surface area of the combustion chamber resulting in a force.
good example of an action reaction force pair in a vacuum.
Buba Legbone appears to be running out of steam.
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?
Plus lol.Enjoying yourself there, Mr. Howard Beale?
You can try answering the above too if you like, Rainman?
Should be good for a laugh...
Or you could tell us if you like cats instead?
This question is every bit as relevant as the one about the steam.
Why should I do an experiment that is irrelevant to the topic?
And how do you know I'm getting Masonic code-phrases wrong, Brother?
Any more mad shit you'd like to waste my time with, you pathetic faux-Satanic tool?
Don't know why you chose hypergolic propellants?This question is every bit as relevant as the one about the steam.
Incorrect.
For what do Hypergolic rocket propellants produce if not a form of steam?
And what was the Aeolipile if not a primitive, fixed, form of steam-rocket?
So the behaviour of steam in a vacuum is very much relevant to the non-debate & fake poll in the wrong part of the forum that you Clowns have spazzed up for the misinformation of all...
All of which wiki-spam has precisely nothing to do with the behaviour of steam in a vacuum.
So STFU, Geoff.
Who on earth was Papa replying to? There has been no Geoff on this site for 9 months or so. I guess it's just his addled brain again!All of which wiki-spam has precisely nothing to do with the behaviour of steam in a vacuum.
So STFU, Geoff.
Do you have textured skin like leather in the sun?
Who on earth was Papa replying to? There has been no Geoff on this site for 9 months or so. I guess it's just his addled brain again!All of which wiki-spam has precisely nothing to do with the behaviour of steam in a vacuum.
So STFU, Geoff.
Do you have textured skin like leather in the sun?
Maybe you could tell him that the nearly 720 tonnes of LH2 + LOX in the Space Shuttle's external tank gets turned into 720 tonnes of very fast moving steam! I am sure Newton's 3rd Law will tell us we will lots and lots of thrust from that.
Maybe you could tell him that the nearly 720 tonnes of LH2 + LOX in the Space Shuttle's external tank gets turned into 720 tonnes of very fast moving steam!
You just now have a problem with liquid hydrogen?
You suck and blow at trolling.
This question is every bit as relevant as the one about the steam.
Incorrect.
For what do Hypergolic rocket propellants produce if not a form of steam?
And what was the Aeolipile if not a primitive, fixed, form of steam-rocket?
So the behaviour of steam in a vacuum is very much relevant to the non-debate & fake poll in the wrong part of the forum that you Clowns have spazzed up for the misinformation of all...
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
No I am not aware. Why do you hate liquid hydrogen? Is it because it's too complicated for you even though hydrogen is the simplest element?You just now have a problem with liquid hydrogen?
No, I first mentioned it months ago.
As you are aware.
It's a common saying here in America.QuoteYou suck and blow at trolling.
You stole that joke from me.
As you are aware.
What strange people you are!
It's a common saying here in America.
It's a common saying here in America.
No, it is not. Maybe you and your dungeon master say things like that to each other, but us normal Americans do not.
You wouldn't know because you are too fat to fit in bleachers. You will have to take my word when I say it's said at sporting events.It's a common saying here in America.
No, it is not. Maybe you and your dungeon master say things like that to each other, but us normal Americans do not.
You wouldn't know because you are too fat to fit in bleachers. You will have to take my word when I say it's said at sporting events.It's a common saying here in America.
No, it is not. Maybe you and your dungeon master say things like that to each other, but us normal Americans do not.
Also football, like the super bowl champion Denver Broncos. Plus baseball, hockey, and basketball.You wouldn't know because you are too fat to fit in bleachers. You will have to take my word when I say it's said at sporting events.It's a common saying here in America.
No, it is not. Maybe you and your dungeon master say things like that to each other, but us normal Americans do not.
Are you referring to your gay soccer league as a sporting event?
Also football, like the super bowl champion Denver Broncos. Plus baseball, hockey, and basketball.You wouldn't know because you are too fat to fit in bleachers. You will have to take my word when I say it's said at sporting events.It's a common saying here in America.
No, it is not. Maybe you and your dungeon master say things like that to each other, but us normal Americans do not.
Are you referring to your gay soccer league as a sporting event?
I actually just ignored your slur as I know you're fat and hate in shape people.
Thanks for derailing the thread.
I actually just ignored your slur as I know you're fat and hate in shape people.
Are you hitting on me? I know you and your soccer buddies my be a little queer, but that does not mean the rest of us like that kind of companionship. I am sure if you took the time to google it, you could find lots of forums for people like yourself and you soccer buddies.
I actually just ignored your slur as I know you're fat and hate in shape people.
Are you hitting on me? I know you and your soccer buddies my be a little queer, but that does not mean the rest of us like that kind of companionship. I am sure if you took the time to google it, you could find lots of forums for people like yourself and you soccer buddies.
The mere fact you direct yourself those words at gay people says a lot about you. Ironically, you call yourself non homophobic.
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Still running away from this, I see:Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Messed up, didn't you, Clowns?
Shoulda stuck with your fake poll & blind insistence that a rocket (singular noun) is somehow two separate objects...
Cos you're straying into Thermodynamics territory now,
And Thermodynamics kills your silly fake 'shpayze-rokkitz' stone dead.
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Lol Saturn V don't exist?Maybe you can help "poor Papa". He's looking for Geoff and can't find him anywhere!
Lol
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?And there hasn't been a Geoff around here for 10 months or so - longer than I've been here.
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Nobody cares, Geoff; if the Aeolipile is a 'reaction engine' then it should work in a vacuum according to YOUR mad, drunken theories...Sorry markjo, there's no Geoff around here to answer.
So just answer the questions:
Shoulda stuck with your fake poll & blind insistence that a rocket (singular noun) is somehow two separate objects...Papa Legba is talking about rockets while everyone else is talking about rocket engines.
Cos you're straying into Thermodynamics territory now,ROTFLMAO!!
And Thermodynamics kills your silly fake 'shpayze-rokkitz' stone dead.
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Nobody cares, Geoff/markjo/etc;Poor Papa Legba is so confused that he doesn't even know who he's ranting at anymore.
if the Aeolipile is a 'reaction engine' then it should work in a vacuum according to YOUR mad, drunken theories...It should work just fine in theory, but it would be tough as a practical experiment.
Nobody cares, Geoff/markjo/etc;Poor Papa Legba is so confused that he doesn't even know who he's ranting at anymore.
It should work just fine in theory
No ranting, either;Are you sure about that?
...your piss-poor psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting is noted.That sounds an awful lot like a rant to me.
Further, you are both also many other sock-ID's here, yet you seem to believe no-one notices this, even though every net-savvy person on the planet is aware of the use of sock-armies to control forums & you barely change character between socks...
Why?
Because you are both old & mental.It should work just fine in theory
Incorrect.
But if you add another sock-vote to your fake poll perhaps the laws of physics will change for you & make it so?
Anyhoo; carry on with your demented lying, shitposting & sock-ing...
What a grand life you have made for yourself, old man!
Semper Fi, eh?
Gases in vacuum freely expand in all directions, so that's what it should do. Again, so what? What's your point?
'Freely'...
Indeed.
'Freely' from what, precisely?
Think an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too btw?
Because it should according to Geoff...
After all, it's a 'beautiful example of a reaction engine', isn't it?
So; first you start a fire (in a vacuum?) beneath your Aeolipile full of water (in a vacuum?)...
Then?
Being a congenital liar, it would.Being a psycho, it wouldn't.
Wow thirty five... Papa you realise the chemical reaction takes place in the rocket engine and not in the vacuum right?No, he doesn't realize that. As far as he's concerned, the propellant magically teleports from the fuel tank to the vacuum of space without any sort of interaction or force pairing with any part of the rocket engine.
The wheels are object B...
Says the retard.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/images/cyuheader.gif)
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Some forces result from contact interactions (normal, frictional, tensional, and applied forces are examples of contact forces) and other forces are the result of action-at-a-distance interactions (gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces).
According to Newton, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other. When you sit in your chair, your body exerts a downward force on the chair and the chair exerts an upward force on your body.
There are two forces resulting from this interaction - a force on the chair and a force on your body. These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Why are you so scared to answer such an easy question?
It's not my source...Yet you keep repeating it ad nauseam as if you agree with it.
Fair Call, I think everyone except Papa knew i was saying the rocket didn't need to push on anything external to itself, e.g the rocket pushing out exhaust in one direction to attain propulsion in the opposite direction, has nothing to do with pushing on our atmosphere.I think everybody knew that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Fair Call, I think everyone except Papa knew i was saying the rocket didn't need to push on anything external to itself, e.g the rocket pushing out exhaust in one direction to attain propulsion in the opposite direction, has nothing to do with pushing on our atmosphere.I think everybody knew that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
If any of you FE's have done this type of experiment, let us know..
Samuel Birley Rowbotham did.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
Lady Bount did.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Lady+Bount+Trials
Bernard H. Watson did.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=English+Mechanic+Article
Mr Bishop, or anyone else.
Have you ever preformed these experiment on your own?
Do you believe the results that these people got? If so why?
I can't believe you FE's. Maybe I haven't lurked enough. It seems you just want to be on here debating moon shrimp, limes ,limes, etc. ,and other things you cannot prove one way or another.
If you believe physics breaks down in a vacuum
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
If you believe physics breaks down in a vacuum
No-one believes that.
We just know the correct way to apply physical laws to a vacuum.
Unlike you.
But if you want an example of 'broken down physics', read this:This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
'Because nonsense!' 'They just do!'; sounds more like crude brainwashing than scientific language to me...
Now tie yourselves in disinfo-knots trying to justify it, eh?
We all need a laugh.
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.
I've got a lot of experience dealing with paranoid delusional disorders,
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.
Oh ffs he's back...
Lie much, Your Satanic Mini-Majesty?I've got a lot of experience dealing with paranoid delusional disorders,
I'll bet you have.
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.
Oh ffs he's back...
Lie much, Your Satanic Mini-Majesty?I've got a lot of experience dealing with paranoid delusional disorders,
I'll bet you have.
My mother, unfortunately. She's coping much better on medication now.
I just want you to know theres help out there.
Why are you so scared to answer such an easy question?
But if you want an example of 'broken down physics', read this:Those are not my words, Papa Legba, and you know it. Please cite the original source correctly or don't use the quote at all.This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
I'll take whatever quote I want from whatever post I find it in, you silly little man.It's not a matter of any rule violation, it's a matter of intellectual integrity.
If you don't like it then report me...
Now; let's laugh at this utter bullshit again, that is a combination of a question, & the answer to that question, both of which I found in YOUR post:If you have a problem with the wording of that statement, then take it with the Physics Classroom web site.This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Anyhoo, if 'the exhaust is object B', as sokarul & all you retards claim, then in the following three examples the Fins of the fish, Wings of the bird & Wheels of the car respectively all also constitute 'object B':So birds detach their wings and launch them away from themselves at high velocity now. ???
So birds detach their wings and launch them away from themselves at high velocity now.
Blah, waffle, pompous tl;dr bullshit...
Why are you so scared to answer such an easy question?
So the exhaust of a rocket does not move with the rocket at all times now?
You know; the fiery bit?
I'll think you'll find it does.
The exhaust does move away from the rocket, exhaust is constantly being released from the rocket.
if you can't answer this, you will have proved that you are just the bag of hot air that we've known all along!
The exhaust does move away from the rocket, exhaust is constantly being released from the rocket.
So the rocket's creating a constant force?
ONE rocket; ONE force?
Therefore, according to Newton's 3rd..?
LMFAO!!!
You idiot.if you can't answer this, you will have proved that you are just the bag of hot air that we've known all along!
LMFAO!!!
No I won't, you idiot.
The subject is Newton's 3rd & your abysmal ignorance of it, idiot.
Wtf is wrong with you all?
The exhaust does move away from the rocket, exhaust is constantly being released from the rocket.
So the rocket's creating a constant force?
ONE rocket; ONE force?
Therefore, according to Newton's 3rd..?
LMFAO!!!
You idiot.if you can't answer this, you will have proved that you are just the bag of hot air that we've known all along!
LMFAO!!!
No I won't, you idiot.
The subject is Newton's 3rd & your abysmal ignorance of it, idiot.
Wtf is wrong with you all?
Anyhoo, if 'the exhaust is object B', as sokarul & all you retards claim, then in the following three examples the Fins of the fish, Wings of the bird & Wheels of the car respectively all also constitute 'object B':Yes, because that was a comprehensive list of every possible force pairing combination.
No, a rocket engine and a reaction mass of burning propellant.The exhaust does move away from the rocket, exhaust is constantly being released from the rocket.
So the rocket's creating a constant force?
ONE rocket; ONE force?
^Says the retards...Well, if you consider every physicist in the world to be a retard... Then yeah... Whatever. ::)
^Says the retards...Well, if you consider every physicist in the world to be a retard... Then yeah... Whatever. ::)
^Says the retards...Well, if you consider every physicist in the world to be a retard... Then yeah... Whatever. ::)
Try going to the forums where real aerospace engineers hang out... ::)
Try asking them about NASA's bullshit... ::) ::)
One where they understand this & don't believe I was born yesterday, you clapped-out old shit-at-your-shit-job spook:Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you. Big surprise.
Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you.
Says the person that thinks birds launch their wings away from themselves at high velocity. ::)The exhaust does move away from the rocket, exhaust is constantly being released from the rocket.
So the rocket's creating a constant force?
ONE rocket; ONE force?
Therefore, according to Newton's 3rd..?
LMFAO!!!
You idiot
One where they understand this & don't believe I was born yesterday, you clapped-out old shit-at-your-shit-job spook:Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you. Big surprise.
Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you.
If this was IRL you'd be dead at my feet....
You seem to be confusing mass with weight. Weight is the effect of gravity acting on the mass of an object. The mass is constant independent of gravity, but weight depends on gravity. On the moon, an astronaut has the same mass as on Earth, but weighs less because there's less gravity acting on his mass. In space, objects have no weight but still have the same mass. You can tell how massive an object is even in space, where it has no weight, by how hard it is to get it moving or slow it down; this is due to its inertia.
You've already had thrust explained to you - Newton's 3rd Law, 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. A rocket in space throws out exhaust and gets an equal reaction in the other direction. There's no requirement to push against space - it's the same principle as pushing someone away from you on ice, they will slide in one direction, you will slide in the opposite direction.
Ooh... Papa Legba is involved in the deep, dark aerospace engineering underground. How scary.Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you.
Yes I do.
I'm just not prepared to tell an intelligence agent where they are.
You really do think I was born yesterday, don't you?No, I think that you're a loud mouth, obnoxious jerk who likes to be a contrarian blowhard just for the lulz.
Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you.
Yes I do.
I'm just not prepared to tell an intelligent agent where they are.
Yes, because intelligence agencies wouldn't know how to find an aerospace engineer discussion forum on their own.Oh, then you don't know of any aerospace engineering forums that agree with you.
Yes I do.
I'm just not prepared to tell an intelligent agent where they are.
Seems legit.
Heh. Check out the page he copied his entry from
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.
Oh ffs he's back...
Lie much, Your Satanic Mini-Majesty?I've got a lot of experience dealing with paranoid delusional disorders,
I'll bet you have.
My mother, unfortunately. She's coping much better on medication now.
I just want you to know theres help out there.
Yeah, & I'm sure your being a practising Satanist was a big help with alleviating your mother's paranoid delusions...
Please tell us more about this; I'll get my popcorn...
And yes, every good aerospace engineer knows NASA is fake.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Some forces result from contact interactions (normal, frictional, tensional, and applied forces are examples of contact forces) and other forces are the result of action-at-a-distance interactions (gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces).
According to Newton, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other. When you sit in your chair, your body exerts a downward force on the chair and the chair exerts an upward force on your body.
There are two forces resulting from this interaction - a force on the chair and a force on your body. These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
But I am a real man, I hit bits of metal, with smaller bits, of metal.
No one is denying that entry of N3. We're just wondering how it proves that rocket engines can't work in a vacuum.Heh. Check out the page he copied his entry from
Just listen to your silly desperate selves...
The fact that you're again trying to deny you posted that definition of N3 yourselves, in the very first post of this thread, & are now trying to introduce another, shows you have lost.
And yes, every good aerospace engineer knows NASA is fake.Obviously you have your own unique definition of "good aerospace engineer" that the rest of the world is unfamiliar with.
And no, I won't tell you where to find their hangouts.Don't tell me, let me guess. They hang out at the corner fish & chip shop.
And yes, markjo is an obvious spook.ROTFLMAO!!
No one is denying that entry of N3. We're just wondering how it proves that rocket engines can't work in a vacuum.
rocket pushs exhaust away (force one) which causes the exhaust to push on rocket (force two).
Yes, and you've been wrong every single time.No one is denying that entry of N3. We're just wondering how it proves that rocket engines can't work in a vacuum.
I already told you.
Repeatedly.
And yes, markjo, you are the most massively obvious spook I have ever encountered online.LOL!! Delusional paranoia much?
Textbook, in fact; which is why you were so easy to spot.
Told you, old man; I was born to this, while you were merely trained in it.
Yes, and you've been wrong every single time.
LOL!! Delusional paranoia much?
The poll results don't lie.
LolThe poll results don't lie.
You do.
So they do.
Plus, the wheels are object B...
Says the retard.
Anyhoo, if 'the exhaust is object B', as sokarul & all you retards claim, then in the following three examples the Fins of the fish, Wings of the bird & Wheels of the car respectively all also constitute 'object B':
(lol no they don't!)
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Yeah; 'teh ecksorst iz obbjkt Bee'...
Says the retards.
Please change your diapers, medicate your mothers, finish your latest batch of bath-tub meth, etc, then return to Lie about this some more...
Retards
Anyhoo, if 'the exhaust is object B', as sokarul & all you retards claim, then in the following three examples the Fins of the fish, Wings of the bird & Wheels of the car respectively all also constitute 'object B':Yes, when the water, air and road respectively constitute 'object A'.
Anyhoo, if 'the exhaust is object B', as sokarul & all you retards claim, then in the following three examples the Fins of the fish, Wings of the bird & Wheels of the car respectively all also constitute 'object B':Yes, when the water, air and road respectively constitute 'object A'.
Notice that no one ever claimed that fish, birds or cars carry their own reaction mass like rockets do.
I am a real man, I hit bits of metal, with smaller bits, of metal.
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
I shovel well, I shovel very well.
The fuel's mass is being pushed out of the back of the rocket, creating a net force in the direction of travel, accelerating the rocket.
I changed my mind.
The fuel's mass is being pushed out of the back of the rocket, creating a net force in the direction of travel, accelerating the rocket.
Papa you shovel better than any man ive ever met
I actually asked (very embarrassed) my friend with a PHD last night how a rocket works in a vacuum
At the pub watching state of origin...
So you don't disagree with what I said. Noted.Anyhoo, if 'the exhaust is object B', as sokarul & all you retards claim, then in the following three examples the Fins of the fish, Wings of the bird & Wheels of the car respectively all also constitute 'object B':Yes, when the water, air and road respectively constitute 'object A'.
Notice that no one ever claimed that fish, birds or cars carry their own reaction mass like rockets do.
LMFAO!!!
'Because nonsense...!'
You haven't channelled Lewis Carroll for a while, Humpty Dumpty...
Good to see you up to your old tricks.
Edit.Oh, Papa Legba knows full well where that quote came from. It's just another example of his complete and shameless intellectual dishonesty.
Also thats my quote you're putting on Markjo, it was from the physics website that I got the easy to understand definition of N3. Tried to make it easier on you.
Haha, I've shown this entire forum to my colleagues (We're all PhD students)
According to yourself, is what I'm saying true or false, and why?
Also, why the 'meh'?
the pushing of fuel away from the rocket results in the rocket being pushed forwards.
Here's N3 for you to misinterpret for the 29,000,000th time:In case you hadn't noticed, those are examples where the reaction mass is the environment (water, air and road).
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
A rocket is different because it carries its ownreactionaction mass in the form of propellant.
I hit big bits of metal, with smaller bits, of metal.
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Okay, if you want the propellant to be the action mass, then that leaves the rocket engine as the reaction mass.A rocket is different because it carries its ownreactionaction mass in the form of propellant.
Fixed your silly disinfo bullshit for you, old man...
Wanna try again?
A rocket isdifferentexactly the same because it carries its ownreactionaction mass in the form of propellant.
Damn, you're persistent, aintcha?You're the one who doesn't get it.
Here, let me fix your bullshit even further:A rocket isdifferentexactly the same because it carries its ownreactionaction mass in the form of propellant.
You still won't get it though, will you?
So a bird is exactly the same as a rocket?
You're the one who doesn't get it.
Birds, fish and cars move by force pairing with their environment.
Rockets move by force pairing with the propellant that they forcibly eject.
Newtons 3rd law is about force-pairing with "it's own force".
Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.QuoteRockets move by force pairing with the propellant that they forcibly eject.
Incorrect.
Nothing can create a force-pairing with its own force.
An entirely separate & external mass is required.
Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
You can't tell the difference between a rocket and its propellant and you have the nerve to call me names?the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
LMFAO!!!
You are mental.
You do understand the concept of one object inside another object, don't you?
So a bird is exactly the same as a rocket?
No.
But Newton's 3rd is applied to both in exactly the same manner...
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
(http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/ahsd/jpg/ASrocket.jpg)
The propellant is burned in the combustion chamber. The exhaust wants to expand equally in all directions, but it can only escape in one direction. Keep in mind, this is a rather explosive combustion. The rocket needs to move in the opposite direction with equal force to the escaping exhaust to be in agreement with Newton's 3rd Law. Anything different would be a violation of the law. How is this hard to grasp?
[nb]Image borrowed from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rocket-engine[/nb]
When fuel is burned it releases energy. As a result, the exhaust expands. Since the compution chamber doesn't change size, the pressure inside increases. This in turn forces out the exhaust faster than it would normally be forced out. And as we all know, Newton's 3rd law comes into play, the force that forces out the exhaust also has an equal and opposite force on the rocket. Thus the rocket moves.No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
When fuel is burned it releases energy. As a result, the exhaust expands. Since the compution chamber doesn't change size, the pressure inside increases. This in turn forces out the exhaust faster than it would normally be forced out. And as we all know, Newton's 3rd law comes into play, the force that forces out the exhaust also has an equal and opposite force on the rocket. Thus the rocket moves.No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
But if you think I'm wrong, why don't you disprove car engines for us, Mr. Dumas.
Yeah, maybe next time think before you type.
your debates are null. Round earth is false4You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
Wat?When fuel is burned it releases energy. As a result, the exhaust expands. Since the compution chamber doesn't change size, the pressure inside increases. This in turn forces out the exhaust faster than it would normally be forced out. And as we all know, Newton's 3rd law comes into play, the force that forces out the exhaust also has an equal and opposite force on the rocket. Thus the rocket moves.No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
But if you think I'm wrong, why don't you disprove car engines for us, Mr. Dumas.
Yeah, maybe next time think before you type.
because in this sense, Car engines work because they are parallel to earth's center of mass. Rocket engines dont work because that must push against an infinite plane of Center of Mass so therefore, according to physics and gravity, rockets are proven not to work, and all space exploration thus far has been a hoax.
You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
Wat?When fuel is burned it releases energy. As a result, the exhaust expands. Since the compution chamber doesn't change size, the pressure inside increases. This in turn forces out the exhaust faster than it would normally be forced out. And as we all know, Newton's 3rd law comes into play, the force that forces out the exhaust also has an equal and opposite force on the rocket. Thus the rocket moves.No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
But if you think I'm wrong, why don't you disprove car engines for us, Mr. Dumas.
Yeah, maybe next time think before you type.
because in this sense, Car engines work because they are parallel to earth's center of mass. Rocket engines dont work because that must push against an infinite plane of Center of Mass so therefore, according to physics and gravity, rockets are proven not to work, and all space exploration thus far has been a hoax.
your debates are null. Round earth is false4You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
your debates are null. Round earth is false4You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
Please. Flame curves inwards because infinite plane of existence? Car engine works because it's parallel to Earth's center of mass??? Combustion in a chamber with a small hole for exhaust to escape creates an unbalanced force as the expanding exhaust is forced to move out of the hole. It's a really simple concept. And testable.
your debates are null. Round earth is false4You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
Please. Flame curves inwards because infinite plane of existence? Car engine works because it's parallel to Earth's center of mass??? Combustion in a chamber with a small hole for exhaust to escape creates an unbalanced force as the expanding exhaust is forced to move out of the hole. It's a really simple concept. And testable.
Don't even bother. It's just another troll invasion.Wat?When fuel is burned it releases energy. As a result, the exhaust expands. Since the compution chamber doesn't change size, the pressure inside increases. This in turn forces out the exhaust faster than it would normally be forced out. And as we all know, Newton's 3rd law comes into play, the force that forces out the exhaust also has an equal and opposite force on the rocket. Thus the rocket moves.No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.Yes, that mass would be burning propellant.
You mean the burning propellant that's creating the rocket's force in the first place?
So that force reacts against itself somehow?
Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
why would fire of the propellant make the rocket fly away??
does fire give some magic round-earth force that pushes it away?
when i light my fireplace it doesnt go and fly away into space so why would a rocket
this is stupid NASA hoax stuff how could anyone be so stupid to believe this
But if you think I'm wrong, why don't you disprove car engines for us, Mr. Dumas.
Yeah, maybe next time think before you type.
because in this sense, Car engines work because they are parallel to earth's center of mass. Rocket engines dont work because that must push against an infinite plane of Center of Mass so therefore, according to physics and gravity, rockets are proven not to work, and all space exploration thus far has been a hoax.
How do you explain then why in "orbit" around the "round" earth you don't continue flying outwards forever if you burn fuel westwards? you're locked in the planet's orbit? contradictions? proves why flat eart is real
your debates are null. Round earth is false4You're misinterpreting the law. What it means is if (AND ONLY IF!!!) the earth was round it would work. seeign as how the earth is a infinite flat plane of existence, the flame curves inwards so it would work. Both scientists Kevin Welsh and Professor Derek Ehle proved this in their study against Newton's law. TL;DR: 3rd law is a HOAX
Hard to argue with rock-solid willful ignorance like that, I guess...
Please. Flame curves inwards because infinite plane of existence? Car engine works because it's parallel to Earth's center of mass??? Combustion in a chamber with a small hole for exhaust to escape creates an unbalanced force as the expanding exhaust is forced to move out of the hole. It's a really simple concept. And testable.
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6084361.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lighter-flame.jpg)
Rocket fire goes down:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/opinion/07missile.480.jpg)
MAGIC!
How do you explain then why in "orbit" around the "round" earth you don't continue flying outwards forever if you burn fuel westwards? you're locked in the planet's orbit? contradictions? proves why flat eart is real
You're barely coherent, and I feel that's being generous, but I am trying to understand what you are writing just the same. It seems you are confusing thrust with gravity. Whether the Earth is flat or round, thrust in a rocket engine works the same. Perhaps you wanted to post that in a thread about how gravity works?
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6084361.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lighter-flame.jpg)
Rocket fire goes down:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/opinion/07missile.480.jpg)
MAGIC!
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6084361.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lighter-flame.jpg)
Rocket fire goes down:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/opinion/07missile.480.jpg)
MAGIC!
It's well described with math... would that be getting a little too in-depth for you? Here's the equation with a pretty picture (ignore that evil NASA word on it. You won't.):
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
Tell me... what's the mass flow rate coming out of the lighter? And the velocity and area? Do you think those numbers are going to be small by comparison to a rocket??
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6084361.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lighter-flame.jpg)
Rocket fire goes down:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/opinion/07missile.480.jpg)
MAGIC!
It's well described with math... would that be getting a little too in-depth for you? Here's the equation with a pretty picture (ignore that evil NASA word on it. You won't.):
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
Tell me... what's the mass flow rate coming out of the lighter? And the velocity and area? Do you think those numbers are going to be small by comparison to a rocket??
why doesnt the fire go up in NASA's image? that's right, because it is FAKE
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6084361.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lighter-flame.jpg)
Rocket fire goes down:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/opinion/07missile.480.jpg)
MAGIC!
It's well described with math... would that be getting a little too in-depth for you? Here's the equation with a pretty picture (ignore that evil NASA word on it. You won't.):
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
Tell me... what's the mass flow rate coming out of the lighter? And the velocity and area? Do you think those numbers are going to be small by comparison to a rocket??
Yes but how would that work with a rocket taking off?
Go grab a lighter and turn it on, you notice the flame always going up no matter which way you orient the lighter. YOU CAN SEE THIS YOURSELF!
Now when a rocket is launching why does the flame suddenly point downwards if it normally always points upwards??
I bet NASA uses holograms that look like flames but upside down for those rockets because this stuff is in no way possible.
Lighter fire goes up:
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6084361.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lighter-flame.jpg)
Rocket fire goes down:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/07/opinion/07missile.480.jpg)
MAGIC!
It's well described with math... would that be getting a little too in-depth for you? Here's the equation with a pretty picture (ignore that evil NASA word on it. You won't.):
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
Tell me... what's the mass flow rate coming out of the lighter? And the velocity and area? Do you think those numbers are going to be small by comparison to a rocket??
why doesnt the fire go up in NASA's image? that's right, because it is FAKE
Hint: It has to do with that velocity term
thrust is a propaganda construct of NASA, no proof there, try again.
3rd law is a HOAX
thrust is a propaganda construct of NASA, no proof there, try again.
Interesting. Because this George Cayley guy seems to get some credit for knowing a thing or two about thrust way before there was ever a NASA.
How can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?
combustion is false too. why doesn't a match shoot forwards whenever you light it? checkmateHow can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?
Combustion, for one.
combustion is false too. why doesn't a match shoot forwards whenever you light it? checkmateHow can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?
Combustion, for one.
combustion is false too. why doesn't a match shoot forwards whenever you light it? checkmateHow can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?
Combustion, for one.
Combustion is false? You win the internet, sir. Well done. You can collect your prize at the nearest corner of the flat Earth.
So a bird and a rocket fly the same way?
They both create a force & that force then creates a force-pairing with the external mass of the atmosphere through which they fly, thus producing motion.
What altitude does the rocket fail?
I haven't been here for a while.
Why Papa doesn't post the Netwon's Third Law of Motion anymore?
Aah, there it is. How many times have you posted this so far Papa? I lost track. Remember, 100 is the magic number
What altitude does the rocket fail?
Well below the Karman Line at 100km.
Not even momentum will get it beyond that...
(http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/ahsd/jpg/ASrocket.jpg)
The propellant is burned in the combustion chamber. The exhaust wants to expand equally in all directions, but it can only escape in one direction. Keep in mind, this is a rather explosive combustion. The rocket needs to move in the opposite direction with equal force to the escaping exhaust to be in agreement with Newton's 3rd Law. Anything different would be a violation of the law. How is this hard to grasp?
Please give some justification for your outlandish guess ofWhat altitude does the rocket fail?
Well below the Karman Line at 100km.
Not even momentum will get it beyond that...
So no shpayze-shippz for you!
Don't fancy that day's labouring with the stonemasons then?
Not surprising; they'd rip the piss out of a prissy little dingbat like you all day long.I haven't been here for a while.
Yes you have, just using a different sock-ID.QuoteWhy Papa doesn't post the Netwon's Third Law of Motion anymore?
What's the matter - you forgot it too?
Here you go then, alzheimers-face:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Why does physics stop working in a vacuum?
The exhaust is object b
So you're saying somewhere below 100km altitude, Newton's 3rd Law breaks down completely then?
the Kármán line is a quite arbitrary altitude!
Karman himself said 'No amount of aerodynamics will get a rocket above 100km altitude'.What does aerodynamics have to do with getting a rocket above 100km? ???
Note the use of the word 'aerodynamics'.
If you are going to say gas powered rockets(Never seen one) don't work in space, you should probably address the next question. As you ignored it you are admitting you know the experiment works in space, thus rickets work in space.Why does physics stop working in a vacuum?
It doesn't.
Gas-powered rockets do though.
The exhaust is object b
Incorrect & proven so repeatedly.
So you're saying somewhere below 100km altitude, Newton's 3rd Law breaks down completely then?
No I am not.
What does aerodynamics have to do with getting a rocket above 100km?
rickets work in space.
Ok, so which part of the diagram was wrong then?
Ok, so which part of the diagram was wrong then?
Didn't even look at it.
Because bullshit & time-wasting.
Being wrong repeatedly doesn't really count.What does aerodynamics have to do with getting a rocket above 100km?
Already explained repeatedly.
...rickets work in space.
Yes, if you could get to space then vitamin D/calcium deficiency would probably still work.
You bullshitting time-waster.
...
Being wrong repeatedly doesn't really count.
You surely haven't, but please quote the post if you have.
As expected, you pissed your pants and ran away.
Yes, I noted the word 'aerodynamics'. It's very significant, but Papa just can't understand why!the Kármán line is a quite arbitrary altitude!It is not.
Karman himself said 'No amount of aerodynamics will get a rocket above 100km altitude'.
Note the use of the word 'aerodynamics'.
*massive disinfo-rant snipped*
the Kármán line is a quite arbitrary altitude!It is not.
Karman himself said 'No amount of aerodynamics will get a rocket above 100km altitude'.
Note the use of the word 'aerodynamics'.
*another mad tl;dr disinfo-rant snipped*
I don't know if that counts as spamming
Post the law again Papa, i think i nearly get it, just need another 40 or so times.
the exhaust both has mass and is accelerating. It MUST then, but the definition of the third law, create and equal and opposite force pushing back on the rocket.
the exhaust both has mass and is accelerating. It MUST then, but the definition of the third law, create and equal and opposite force pushing back on the rocket.Wrong.
Could the fish swim without water?
Could the bird fly without air?
Could the car move without a road?
Forces result from interactions, remember?
Look:<<<<<< Seen it 29 times already >>>>>
Could the rocket move without the exhaust gas?
Also no
*Mad tl;dr disinfo-rant snipped yet again*
Could the rocket move without the exhaust gas?
Also no
This is equivalent to saying 'Could the bird move without its wings? Or the fish without its fins? Or the car without its wheels?'.
Seen the vote lately? No: 43 Yes: 6 Papa Legba's team of trolls.
You really should learn 31 x (100% wrong) = 3,100% wrong - is that possible? maybe it should be the Boolean OR function!
So:
(WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨
(WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨
(WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨ (WRONG) ∨
(WRONG) = still WRONG.
I'm sure Papa is laughing at you lot. Changing names to come back as if it's going to have any effect. ;D
You people have tried every trick in the book at attempted ridicule and failed on every one. What's next?
I'm sure Papa is laughing at you lot. Changing names to come back as if it's going to have any effect. ;D
You people have tried every trick in the book at attempted ridicule and failed on every one. What's next?
Of course he is, anyone putting effort into a serious response to try and disprove what he's saying is failing. That was me to begin with, too. Papa's just looking for people to waste their time responding to him.
I suggest to people on this forum; as soon as you know someone is a troll, don't waste your time posting a serious response.
I'm sure Papa is laughing at you lot. Changing names to come back as if it's going to have any effect. ;DPapa's not the only one laughing! I only reply to his posts when I need a bit of light relief, not to tell him (it) anything - I know that has no effect.
You people have tried every trick in the book at attempted ridicule and failed on every one. What's next?
So now exhaust gas to a rocket is like wings to a bird, huh?
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is... *rest of tl;dr copy-pasta disinfo-rant snipped*
Birds, fish and cars don't shoot 80-90% of their mass out their tail ends to get where they're going either.Could the rocket move without the exhaust gas?
Also no
This is equivalent to saying 'Could the bird move without its wings? Or the fish without its fins? Or the car without its wheels?'.
So now exhaust gas to a rocket is like wings to a bird, huh?
Yes, because they are both Accelerating a Mass.
But that Mass must interact with a second, external Mass to create a Force-Pairing & thus Motion.
And just what mass is a rocket accelerating?So now exhaust gas to a rocket is like wings to a bird, huh?
Yes, because they are both Accelerating a Mass.
As is your total disregard for gas to expand to fill available (combustion chamber) volume.If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is... *rest of tl;dr copy-pasta disinfo-rant snipped*
Your total disregard for the path of least resistance & all the Gas Laws is noted.
Think yourself lucky you're getting some response. It won't last long, so make the best of it before your name change.I'm sure Papa is laughing at you lot. Changing names to come back as if it's going to have any effect. ;D
You people have tried every trick in the book at attempted ridicule and failed on every one. What's next?
Of course he is, anyone putting effort into a serious response to try and disprove what he's saying is failing. That was me to begin with, too. Papa's just looking for people to waste their time responding to him.
I suggest to people on this forum; as soon as you know someone is a troll, don't waste your time posting a serious response.
Save your nonsense.I'm sure Papa is laughing at you lot. Changing names to come back as if it's going to have any effect. ;D
You people have tried every trick in the book at attempted ridicule and failed on every one. What's next?
Now are you accusing me to be the same as Ryan? Dude, just ask jroa to check our IP addresses! Or you can just check our post per day, mine is like 1/5 of his. Or just calculate our post to total time spent online ratio. Mine is way lower than him.
Birds, fish and cars don't shoot 80-90% of their mass out their tail ends to get where they're going either.
]Please quote an independent source that agrees with you!
And just what mass is a rocket accelerating?
As is your total disregard for gas to expand to fill available (combustion chamber) volume.
You are obsessed, Geoff, you were like that with me at one point. Mr multi. You're a joke, an absolute joke of a person. Papa rips you to bits, time and time again.I'm sure Papa is laughing at you lot. Changing names to come back as if it's going to have any effect. ;DPapa's not the only one laughing! I only reply to his posts when I need a bit of light relief, not to tell him (it) anything - I know that has no effect.
You people have tried every trick in the book at attempted ridicule and failed on every one. What's next?
What do you expect when Papa Legba is just an AI programmed to spew out rubbish of cue.
He (it) believes in nothing and shows us he knows nothing that hasn't been planted there by his robot master, so what would we expect.
We don't change names (well I never have), but I would guarantee Papa floats around here in a few guises.
Would the real Papa please step forward! Sorry, bit hard for a mindless AI to do stand up!
PATH. OF. LEAST. RESISTANCE!
MEANS. NO. PRESSURE. FOR. YOU. IN. SILLY. COMBUSTION. CHAMBER. IF. OPEN. TO. VACUUM!
OKAY?
*Yawn!*
Been here before, markjo; you lost every single time...
Remember?
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.
This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure PP inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length ss. Each wall will have a force Ps2Ps2 pushing on it.
Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work.
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.
The rocket motor burns a mixture of fuel and oxygen to produce a very hot gas. By very hot we mean that the gas molecules have very high random velocities:
If the fuel were burning in a vaccum the random directions of the atom velocities would mean the ball of atoms expands in a roughly spherical way and the total momentum stays zero. But the fuel is not burning in a vacuum, it's burning inside a combustion chamber:
The reason this matters is that the atoms can't escape to the right or up or down because the walls of the combution chamber are in the way. So they will bounce around until some random collision (with the walls or other atoms) gives them a velocity pointing to the left:
So very quickly all the atoms are going to end up with their velocities pointing in roughly the same direction, because at that point they can escape from the combustion chamber and go flying off into space. Now let's calculate the momentum of all those atoms. If there are NN atoms and the mass of each atom is mm and their average velocity is vv then the total momentum is now NmvNmv (we'll take velocity to the left to be positive). The momentum of the fuel before burning was zero, and after burning it's NmvNmv, so the momentum has changed by NmvNmv. Conservation of momentum means the rocket must have changed its momentum by −Nmv−Nmv so that the total momentum change adds up to zero.
So burning the fuel and allowing it to escape to the left means the rocket must have accelerated to the right. In other words the rocket engine has produced a force on the rocket, and we've calculated this without needing to think of pressures or other macroscopic quantities. In fact we can be more precise about the force. If the rocket produces NsNs particles of exhaust gas per second then the momentum change of the rocket per second is −Nsmv−Nsmv. Momentum change is force times time, so the force on the rocket is simply:
F=Nsmv
F=Nsmv
This force is produced simply because atoms moving to the right bounce off the end of the combustion chamber, and hence push the rocket to the right, but atoms moving to the left don't.
Still want to play?
My point is that rockets carry their own reaction mass. You know, the 80-90% of mass that gets shot out the tail end?Birds, fish and cars don't shoot 80-90% of their mass out their tail ends to get where they're going either.
Yes; rockets are relatively inefficient; this is hardly news to anyone except sci fi-nerds & disinfo-turds.
They do go quite fast though, so it balances somewhat...
Your point?
If it's such a dumb question, then you shouldn't have any trouble answering it.And just what mass is a rocket accelerating?
Back so soon, markjo?
And with such a dumb question?
The combustion chamber itself provides resistance to the gas flow.As is your total disregard for gas to expand to fill available (combustion chamber) volume.
PATH. OF. LEAST. RESISTANCE!
MEANS. NO. PRESSURE. FOR. YOU. IN. SILLY. COMBUSTION. CHAMBER. IF. OPEN. TO. VACUUM!
The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second is way to understand what's going on.
So now exhaust gas to a rocket is like wings to a bird, huh?
Yes, because they are both Accelerating a Mass.
But that Mass must interact with a second, external Mass to create a Force-Pairing & thus Motion.
How about recoil of a hand gun then? Oh, you're gonna say it's the external atmosphere too. Right...
no external mass is required to produce recoil.
Notice how the rocket is built and then the liquid oxygen and fuel are pumped in?
Now STFU
Notice how fuelling the rocket is equivalent to cocking the crossbow?
Nope. The combustion chamber/combustion is equal to the string.Notice how the rocket is built and then the liquid oxygen and fuel are pumped in?
Now STFU
Notice how fuelling the rocket is equivalent to cocking the crossbow?
So it still needs an external mass in order to conform with N3 once the potential energy of the internally stored mass is accelerated?
Now STFU.
Plus this:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Fuelling the rocket adds mass and energy to it, cocking the crossbow just adds the energy
Cocking the crossbow then loading the arrow
The combustion chamber/combustion is equal to the string.
Back to "Exhuast stacking."
The mass of the string is already a part of the crossbow's overall mass.Fuelling the rocket adds mass and energy to it, cocking the crossbow just adds the energy
So the string has no mass & does not accelerate?
Yes, you realized that adding tension to the crossbow string is an independent function to loading the arrow.Cocking the crossbow then loading the arrow
LOL!!!
I see what you did there!
Fuelling the rocket adds mass and energy to it, cocking the crossbow just adds the energy
So the string has no mass & does not accelerate?
If you want, you can think of the arrow as the rocket and the crossbow as the propellant.
But unlike the rocket fuel, the string is not ejected.
If you want, you can think of the arrow as the rocket and the crossbow as the propellant.
If you want to be retarded you can.
But you've managed to steer the 'debate' into the realm of Solid Mechanics, as usual, so I guess you're happy with how your shill-mission is going, eh?
But unlike the rocket fuel, the string is not ejected.
A rocket does not simply 'eject' fuel; it burns it in a controlled manner inside itself, creating an area of high pressure at the exit of the nozzle which in turn creates a force-pairing with the external mass of the atmosphere.
If the external mass is removed, as in vacuum conditions, then no force-pairing can be created & no motion produced.
Simple stuff.
No, no, no. I asked for an independent source, not the (n+1)th[1] repetition of Papa Legba's Third Law]Please quote an independent source that agrees with you!Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
Okay:
Papa Legba's Third Law
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
A gas can create a force-pairing with another gas, yes.
You may find the formula Force=Pressure x Area useful here, where mass x acceleration is contained within the term 'Force'. In the case of a rocket the Pressure is applied at the Area of the nozzle exit, where it meets the external mass of the atmosphere...
As for your hoverboards, water is an incompressible fluid; this may give you a clue as to how they work?With your understanding of how rocket works, then no, I don't have a clue. But of course you do understand it, don't you? Please, explain it to me, show me you understand. Concerning newton's 3rd law, please tell me which resembles the rocket, which resembles the exhaust gas, which resembles the nozzle, and which resembles the outside atmosphere that you think has to be present, and how the riders can be propelled upwards.
Anyhoo; please continue your mad ranting, which is written in the exact same style as BabyHighSpeed, Frenat & Luckyfred btw.Well you can ask jroa our IP addresses. You can also compare our activities from the stats. But come on, we both know who's the troll here, right?
As for your hoverboards, water is an incompressible fluid; this may give you a clue as to how they work?With your understanding of how rocket works, then no, I don't have a clue. But of course you do understand it, don't you? Please, explain it to me, show me you understand. Concerning newton's 3rd law, please tell me which resembles the rocket, which resembles the exhaust gas, which resembles the nozzle, and which resembles the outside atmosphere that you think has to be present, and how the riders can be propelled upwards.
Prepare for some seriously fun rocket science!
This exciting water-rocket kit contains everything you need to blast a rocket up to 30 meters toward the heavens! That's as high as 9 stories! More than impressive, we say.
The beauty of the LiquiFly Deluxe Kit is that it's all-inclusive - you get the pump and bottle, as well as some useful extras. Designed to demonstrate the principles of thrust, acceleration and jet propulsion: these rockets really fly using only the power of water and air pressure.
The sleek bottle rocket itself features screw on fins to help maintain the correct trajectory, high and low launch valves and a special air-pump specially optimized for Liquifly rocketry.
Try experimenting with different water levels, and varying the air pressure to test how thrust is affected. Full instructions are provided in each kit on safety, set-up and how to really max out your thrust.
Demonstrations at school don't get better than this!
Age: 8+; Warning this is not a toy. It is a seriously fun experiment. Adult supervision required at launch.
LiquiFly Deluxe Kit Includes: a set of fins to keep your bottle rocket on course, a plastic bottle rocket, a high launch and low launch valve, 6 Metres of hose, release fittings and a pump optimised for use with the Liquifly kit.
So get out on a windless day with 2.5 litres of water, and begin counting-down to blast off!
How Does it Work?
LiquiFly works on the same principle as other water rockets, with the energy coming from water and air. The action of pumping air into the bottle filled with water creates high pressure which forces the water through the restricted opening at high velocity. This creates the thrust needed to launch the bottle high into the air. A fun way to learn about rockets and Newton's third law of motion "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".
Teach
Rocketry Jet propulsion Thrust, acceleration and gravity
https://www.australiangiftsonline.com.au/products/liquifly-deluxe-the-amazing-water-powered-rocket-kit?variant=1139318704&gclid=CjwKEAjw4dm6BRCQhtzl6Z6N4i0SJADFPu1n3szozoe-5-WxSe5fJRvF0H1IWeMhVXcqDkXOOsXDkBoCPVXw_wcB
The higher pressure inside, normal pressure outside, hole at the bottom. The air goes from high to low pressure through the hole, ejected downwards, so the rest of the balloon go upwards, Newton's 3rd law.
please tell me which resembles the rocket, which resembles the exhaust gas, which resembles the nozzle, and which resembles the outside atmosphere that you think has to be present, and how the riders can be propelled upwards.
Blah, sneer, whine, yak, blah...
A gas can create a force-pairing with another gas, yes.Can a gas create a force pairing with a solid?
You may find the formula Force=Pressure x Area useful here, where mass x acceleration is contained within the term 'Force'. In the case of a rocket the Pressure is applied at the Area of the nozzle exit, where it meets the external mass of the atmosphere...What about the surface area of the rocket engine itself? Is there no pressure applied there?
The "diagram was an MS paint of two circles representing molecules. I wanted you or Sceptictank to explain how to molecules hitting each other could propel a rocket. Care to explain yet? Or are you going to further your reputation as all talk no evidence?Back to "Exhuast stacking."
'Exhuast' stacking is your own mad & incorrectly-spelled disinfo-invention, socky-boy...
That you attribute the notion to myself merely shows how desperate you are.
I believe you created some educational diagrams to elucidate 'exhuast stacking'...
Care to share them with us again?
We all need a laugh.
The higher pressure inside, normal pressure outside, hole at the bottom. The air goes from high to low pressure through the hole, ejected downwards, so the rest of the balloon go upwards, Newton's 3rd law.
Unless you are referring to Newton's previously-undiscovered 3rd Law of Complete Bullshit, then you are wrong.
Why does your silly hoverboard fall back into the sea when it gets above around 16 feet in height
& why does it work better the closer the jets are to the sea surface?
If you believe it is violating N3 by creating a force-pairing with either nothing or itself, rather than the very obvious external mass of the sea (& to a lesser extent the atmosphere), then YOU explain why.
As for your hoverboards, water is an incompressible fluid; this may give you a clue as to how they work?
Why does your silly hoverboard fall back into the sea when it gets above around 16 feet in heightBecause it is uncool and boring to just stay up there, and they are showing off their skills in the video. So being uncool is the last thing the want
What does it have to do with water being incompressible? Again, give me a complete answer, if you have then quote your complete answer, if you do neither of those super easy tasks that means you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law.
Well according to your crazy model all the pressure is applied to the injector plates above the combustion chamber...Why would that be catastrophic? Turbine engine combustion chambers seem to work just fine with a similar configuration.
Which'd be pretty catastrophic to say the least.
So it's a good thing they don't work the way you say they do, eh?Who says they don't work the way I say they do?
And I'm just gonna pretend you didn't ask if a gas can force-pair with a solid...Of course you will, that way you don't have to admit that the expanding combustion gasses force pair with the rocket engine just fine.
Quote from: hello_thereWhat does it have to do with water being incompressible? Again, give me a complete answer, if you have then quote your complete answer, if you do neither of those super easy tasks that means you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law.
"stfu sokarul"
Lol
Destroyed.
lol
Exhaust Stacking
Lol
Can't even back up his claims
Lol
65 years old?
Lol
Turbine engine combustion chambers seem to work just fine with a similar configuration.
Are 'similar' and 'same' synonyms where you come from?Turbine engine combustion chambers seem to work just fine with a similar configuration.
Now you don't understand how turbine engines work either?
You think they have the same configuration as a rocket engine?
they both inject fuel into a high pressure, open ended combustion chamber to be burned.
You are so markjo's bitch aren't you?
You are so markjo's bitch aren't you?I just like to point out your stupidity.
Then why isn't a turbine engine snuffed out by back pressure?they both inject fuel into a high pressure, open ended combustion chamber to be burned.
Which would be snuffed out by back-pressure according to your bullshit model of how thrust is created.
Exit of the nozzle, Bagpuss...You keep saying that, but completely ignore the mass flow rate of the exhaust and the exhaust pressure acting against the walls of the rocket engine (both in the combustion chamber and in the exhaust bell).
That's where the force-pairing occurs.
Also Markjo got post 420... damn you Markjo.Actually, it's reply 420. The OP isn't included in that count.
Goddamnit man it's not hard to grasp.I suspect that PL does grasp it, but refuses to break character regardless of how simply or thoroughly it's explained.
Sit down and take notes.
Then why isn't a turbine engine snuffed out by back pressure?they both inject fuel into a high pressure, open ended combustion chamber to be burned.Which would be snuffed out by back-pressure according to your bullshit model of how thrust is created.
Think of the fuel as apples the rocket as you and the chemical reaction as throwing the apples.
You can think of the gas molecules as very small very light apples.
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.
What mess I created? Do you mean the thread where your arguments were consistently and completly destroyed?
the gas atoms have mass, therefore the throwing apple comparison was completely relevant, nice job dodging that one.
USo now solid atoms have mass, but gas atoms are massless! This really is a new physics. Can we christen it Poppy Physics?the gas atoms have mass, therefore the throwing apple comparison was completely relevant, nice job dodging that one.What, dodging it by telling you it violates the Gas Laws?
Which you already admitted btw...
.Anyhoo; you seem to be intent on derailing your own thread with mad bullshit & terrible false analogies about 'throwing solid masses of gas into a vacuum'...
Mini-Minion?
Boyle's Law
For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, pressure and volume are inversely proportional.
Or Boyle's law is a gas law, stating that the pressure and volume of a gas have an inverse relationship, when temperature is held constant. If volume increases, then pressure decreases and vice versa, when temperature is held constant.
Therefore, when the volume is halved, the pressure is doubled; and if the volume is doubled, the pressure is halved.
Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law that describes how gases tend to expand when heated. A modern statement of Charles' law is:
When the pressure on a sample of a dry gas is held constant, the Kelvin temperature and the volume will be directly related.
Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
There is one little problem! Space is not really a vacuum, there actually some particles there.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
So that's pretty damning, no?
The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 106 particles per m3That sure boils away your silly Boyle's Law argument.
You mean "an infinite vacuum such as" Papa Legba claims "space is".
In an infinite vacuum such as space is claimed to be, Pressure can only ever be Zero; ergo Work & Force will also be Zero.
He turned the other tap on because that's how those sprayers work you know, they need water.Sit down and take notes.
Why did the shill turn the other tap on too?
Work that one out & see the fraud.
(clue: water is an incompressible fluid).
The force from a rocket is created when the exhaust leaves the rocket.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
So that's pretty damning, no?
But there are other Gas Laws too; your shitty disinfo-post just avoided mentioning them...
Because disinfo, presumably.
Try Work=Pressure x Change in Volume & Force=Pressure x Area for example.
In an infinite vacuum such as space is claimed to be, Pressure can only ever be Zero; ergo Work & Force will also be Zero.
So; you have three Gas Laws to go with Newton's 3rd Law of motion, all of which your silly gas-powered 'shpayze-rokkitz' comprehensively violate.
*Yawn!*
Told you; you lose every time.
Now spam up an especially mad false analogy to waste our time some more, you Mongoloid.
Oh, & STFU Geoff.
Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
He turned the other tap on because that's how those sprayers work you know, they need water.
Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
Water being incompressible has nothing to do with what is seen. The video simply shows the water isn't pushing off the air.He turned the other tap on because that's how those sprayers work you know, they need water.
How convenient for him...
And water is still an incompressible fluid.
If you can't understand that then just STFU.
On second thoughts just STFU anyway.Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
So you're all going with shitting the place up with mad quibbling over the definition of a vacuum then?
Like 'outer space is not a vacuum but a hoover is'?
And of course, you've long derailed the topic from Newton's 3rd too.
If so I'd say we're done here...
And you've lost.
Again.
Toodle-pip, Losers; come back when you're ready to talk about this scientifically!
Why not? You've shit up lots of threads with less.Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
So you're all going with shitting the place up with mad quibbling over the definition of a vacuum then?
Like 'outer space is not a vacuum but a hoover is'?I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that. I'm saying that a vacuum is not an absolute condition. There are degrees of vacuum.
And of course, you've long derailed the topic from Newton's 3rd too.Does this mean that you're ready admit that an object can carry its own reaction mass?
Why not? You've shit up lots of threads with less.Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
So you're all going with shitting the place up with mad quibbling over the definition of a vacuum then?
There are degrees of vacuum.
Does this mean that you're ready admit that an object can carry its own reaction mass?
Yes, but it's still not a perfect vacuum.There are degrees of vacuum.
And outer space is the highest degree of vacuum known to science.
I was thinking more like Satan on a skateboard throwing medicine balls at your head.Does this mean that you're ready admit that an object can carry its own reaction mass?
We back to the crossbow now?
And outer space is the highest degree of vacuum known to science.
WTF is wrong with you? You think posting "STFU sokarul" will win an argument? All it means is you have nothing so you are running away. Why is it so hard to explain yourself? Well listen kid, if you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up. Understand? I want you to say you understand.
Oh, & STFU sokarul.
Water being incompressible has nothing to do with what is seen. The video simply shows the water isn't pushing off the air.He turned the other tap on because that's how those sprayers work you know, they need water.
How convenient for him...
And water is still an incompressible fluid.
If you can't understand that then just STFU.
On second thoughts just STFU anyway.Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
So you're all going with shitting the place up with mad quibbling over the definition of a vacuum then?
Like 'outer space is not a vacuum but a hoover is'?
And of course, you've long derailed the topic from Newton's 3rd too.
If so I'd say we're done here...
And you've lost.
Again.
Toodle-pip, Losers; come back when you're ready to talk about this scientifically!
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
Oh, & STFU Geoff.
stop this idiocy of not being ably to put gases into a vacuum.
What happens when mass is ejected one way from a rocket?
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.
A way of expressing the first law of thermodynamics is that any change in the internal energy (∆E) of a system is given by the sum of the heat (q) that flows across its boundaries and the work (w) done on the system by the surroundings:
This law says that there are two kinds of processes, heat and work, that can lead to a change in the internal energy of a system. Since both heat and work can be measured and quantified, this is the same as saying that any change in the energy of a system must result in a corresponding change in the energy of the surroundings outside the system. In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If heat flows into a system or the surroundings do work on it, the internal energy increases and the sign of q and w are positive. Conversely, heat flow out of the system or work done by the system (on the surroundings) will be at the expense of the internal energy, and q and w will therefore be negative.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of any isolated system always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system. More simply put: the entropy of the universe (the ultimate isolated system) only increases and never decreases.
A simple way to think of the second law of thermodynamics is that a room, if not cleaned and tidied, will invariably become more messy and disorderly with time - regardless of how careful one is to keep it clean. When the room is cleaned, its entropy decreases, but the effort to clean it has resulted in an increase in entropy outside the room that exceeds the entropy lost.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics
The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance (perfect order) at absolute zero temperature is zero. This statement holds true if the perfect crystal has only one state with minimum energy.
Consider the motion of rockets. The rocket engine pushes on the exhaust gas. The exhaust gas wants to expand in all directions but can not because the nozzle is in the way. So it pushes off the nozzle leaving the exhaust gas to go one way(backwards) and the rocket goes the other way (forwards). An action and reaction between two objects.
That was fun. Have more examples to consider?
If you can't answer it's ok.
Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.
You shills have to get the last word in.
It's official protocol.
Enjoy having your time wasted.Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.
Uh... Wait, uh... I've lost the counting... Um... How many times have you posted this? It's not 100 yet, is it?If you can't answer it's ok.
You shills have to get the last word in.
It's official protocol.
Enjoy having your time wasted.Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.
Uh... Wait, uh... I've lost the counting... Um... How many times have you posted this? It's not 100 yet, is it?If you can't answer it's ok.
Ooh, two at once!
Anyway, how much time do you think that wasted?
The fact that you just made two unnecessary posts in order to turn the page on your humiliation proves you are not here for honest 'debate'.
And I have already shown how the notion of a gas-powered rocket working in a vacuum violates thermodynamics with the formulae W=p*v & F=PA; again, you are simply pretending I have not.
I am bored with your obvious shilling & psychotic personality, so please read this then stop wasting my time:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times >>>Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times[1] >>>
Like moths to a flame...
You just HAVE to get the last word in don't you?
Under orders to do so in fact...
Off you go then!The fact that you just made two unnecessary posts in order to turn the page on your humiliation proves you are not here for honest 'debate'.
And I have already shown how the notion of a gas-powered rocket working in a vacuum violates thermodynamics with the formulae W=p*v & F=PA; again, you are simply pretending I have not.
I am bored with your obvious shilling & psychotic personality, so please read this then stop wasting my time:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times >>>Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.<<< Seen it before about 17.3· times[1] >>>Since you haven't said who you're talking to (probably babbling to yourself really), I will grace you with an answer!
I note that you say "The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards)."
So now birds in your country only fly upwards (I wonder what happens when they reach the Kármán line (I don't think birds can fly in a vacuum!), in Australia they fly mainly forwards actually, how ever do the smart birds here manage to do that when yours can only fly upwards?[2]
You still keep forgetting one!
Consider the motion of a rocket on the way to the moon. A rocket is equipped with a combustion chamber and nozzle that ejects a huge mass of gas at very high velocity in the opposite direction to the rockets motion. The force required to accelerate this huge mass of gas drives the rocket forwards. For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for rocket to accelerate in space.Yes, I know I didn't word this very well (in a hurry and all that!), so master wordsmith can undoubtedly express the same thought much better.
Thanks in advance for the help!
[1] If you wonder about the recurring decimal, I only read about 1/3 of each post!
[2] Yes, I know it's quite stupid. I know I haven't reached your pinnacle of idiocy yet, but really I am trying!You shills have to get the last word in.
It's official protocol.
Enjoy having your time wasted.
Hilarious how much effort trolls put into trying to insult us. :)You are throwing the biggest temper tantrum it's hilarious.You shills have to get the last word in.
It's official protocol.
Enjoy having your time wasted.Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.Are you getting angry because you're losing?
How does a rocket violate either the laws of gas or thermodynamics?
If you can't answer it's ok.You sick little freak; you don't even realise the Gas Laws are part of Thermodynamics do you?
You just keep shilling your witless pseudo-scientific nonsense without any thought whatsoever...
YOU HAVE LOST.
IT IS OVER.
Read this then STFU & GTFO:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No point in arguing with you. I'm going to assume that you either agree with us that rockets work in space, or simply don't have anything valid to say in opposition. This debate is settled.
Uh... Wait, uh... I've lost the counting... Um... How many times have you posted this? It's not 100 yet, is it?If you can't answer it's ok.
Ooh, two at once!
Anyway, how much time do you think that wasted?
I said a gas can neither do work nor produce force in a vacuum, & that a finite amount of gas introduced into an infinite vacuum will effectively cease to be a gas.Then it's a good thing that we are only interested in the gas doing work within the finite confines of a rocket engine.
I also provided the relevant gas laws to prove what I said is true.Those gas laws only prove that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
The only things you are 'interested' in are turning threads to shit, spying on the members here & getting the last word in, so spare me your bullshit.
You are the most obvious shill on the entire internet, markjo; I spotted you within TWO posts, that's how shit at your shit job you are.
Anyhoo; I just deleted all my earlier posts so you all look like mental cases arguing with yourselves...
And I also got the last word in again, thus forcing you to keep showing us what a massive bunch of shills you are.
Off you go, psycho; obey your shill-protocol & GET THE LAST WORD IN...
By saying 'NO U!!!' with a rolly-eye emoji, no doubt.
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
MACH 7From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)
The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.
In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).
The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.
In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.
In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
Thank you for making your very 1st sock-shill post vague irrelevant bullshit attacking me.
You will now need to get the last word in, as is your shill-duty...
Off you go, shilly lad!
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
Dishonesty is not how I operate. Maybe try fact checking me before assuming I'm lying. Or, you know, ask for a citation.
Thanks for the help, Rab! That's the aircraft I was referencing!
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?
You seem to be confused. A citation is in fact verifiable. Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head?
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?
You seem to be confused. A citation is in fact verifiable. Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head?
The post was credible and easily verifiable. In fact, another poster was able to understand exactly what kind of flying apparatus JoshPerplexed was talking about with exactly the same amount of information you had available to you. Technology isn't perfect. I wasn't blaming you for your google wires misfiring. But if they are firing correctly, you can use them to find your own sources independently, without depending on a round-earther to tell you what to believe. That seems like a win-win, no?
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.Quote from: Roger DarlingtonMACH 7From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)
The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.
In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).
The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.
In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.
In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.
Is your interwebz broken, jroa? Are you unable to confirm things yourself? And would you believe an assertion by someone with a different world view than yours without being able to independently source information?
You seem to be confused. A citation is in fact verifiable. Perhaps your lies have finally gotten to your head?
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.Quote from: Roger DarlingtonMACH 7From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)
The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.
In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).
The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.
In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.
In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
Dishonesty is not how I operate. Maybe try fact checking me before assuming I'm lying. Or, you know, ask for a citation.
Thanks for the help, Rab! That's the aircraft I was referencing!
If you don't want to sound like a liar, then you could post credible facts instead of expecting people to believe your lies. I thought everyone knew this?
You demand that "you could post credible facts". The facts he quoted seemed quite credible to me! The bit that might have bamboozled you is the logic that if rockets and jet planes actually needed "air to push on" then they should perform better at a lower altitude where they have denser "air to push on". The fact is that they don't. All else being equal the thrust of a jet or rocket actually (I can see Papa preparing his usual copy and post rubbish already!) increases as the air pressure falls. Of course with the jet being air-breathing it runs "out of puff" at too high an altitude, but the rocket has no such problem. On the right is the Goddard Rocket Equation showing this: | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Goddard%20Rocket%20Equation_zpsvziysqv7.jpg) Goddard Rocket Thrust Equation |
Why would I cite a source for an argument I didn't make? ??? That would be very presumptive of me. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
From what I read so far, it looks like this post might help you out:If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
When did this happen? Oh, are you lying? I see.
Low type aren't you? You could check it out yourself (or simply say nothing) instead of accusing JoshPerplexed of lying (well, close enough).
And as he said, if rockets and jet aircraft need "air to push on" why would the best performance seem to be at around 100,000 ft, where there is very low air drag, yet enough for a SCRAM jet to "breathe"? [1] The simple fact is neither jet engines nor rockets need air to "push off", though of course jet engines (including the SCRAM jet) need air intake for the engine.Quote from: Roger DarlingtonMACH 7From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)
The first flight at seven times the speed of sound occurred on 27 March 2004. The aircraft was the X-43A which was unpiloted.
In fact, although the media at the time widely reported the flight as achieving Mach 7, subsequent assessment revealed that the new speed record was Mach 6.83 (5,060 mph).
The 12-foot long X-43A was flown to a height of 100,000 feet over California by a modified Boeing B-52 bomber. It was then dropped and a revolutionary ramjet-scramjet engine came into action for a mere 11 seconds. This was enough to take the experimental craft to its record speed. It then went through a series of manoeuvres for six minutes before it made a planned splash-down in the ocean. It was not recovered because of the cost.
In a normal jet engine, fan blades compress the air. However, in the scramjet, the combustion of hydrogen fuel in a stream of air is compressed by the high speed of the aircraft. Since a scramjet only starts to work at about six times the speed of sound, the X-43A was initially accelerated by a Pegasus rocket.
In the course of its 11 seconds of power, the X-41A travelled about 15 miles. The Wright brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet. That's progress for you.
[1] DIfference between Flat Earther and Globe supporter:
Flat Earther - My super intelligent brain can't understand it, so it must be a lie or fake and so the earth must be flat.
Globe supporter - I don't understand it, so I need to do some research and see if it looks feasible, then learn something.
But maybe not. After all, I didn't bring up the air speed thing and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. But my google works and it seems like other independent sources support the fact that some super duper extra fast planes go up to about 100,000 ft as a part of their means for achieving their super duper extra fast speed. What does your google tell you?
You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon. ::)And you sound like that idiot "reporter" who lured the astronaut to an interview under false pretenses and then proceeded to call him a liar, a coward and thief after demanding that he swear on a bible that he went to the moon. Be careful that some old timer doesn't deck you too, jroa.
You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon. ::)And you sound like that idiot "reporter" who lured the astronaut to an interview under false pretenses and then proceeded to call him a liar, a coward and thief after demanding that he swear on a bible that he went to the moon. Be careful that some old timer doesn't deck you too, jroa.
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
Normally people would do that anyway. Go ahead.sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom. I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot. However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so.
Normally people would do that anyway. Go ahead.sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom. I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot. However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so.
No, see, I said stop spamming up my thread Jroa.
Not, please continue derailing my thread.
🤔🤔
WTF does my post history have to do with you backing up YOUR claim?Normally people would do that anyway. Go ahead.sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom. I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot. However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so.
You mean you want for me to cite your entire post history?
WTF does my post history have to do with you backing up YOUR claim?Normally people would do that anyway. Go ahead.sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom. I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot. However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so.
You mean you want for me to cite your entire post history?
Two low content, off topic posts in a row.
You can do better than this.
Wow, you really have no reading comprehension.WTF does my post history have to do with you backing up YOUR claim?Normally people would do that anyway. Go ahead.sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew. Well, maybe no quite that wise.Not my fault you have to make up arguments.
I am not arguing about your lack of wisdom. I am fairly sure that everyone here knows you are an idiot. However, if I need to provide citations, I will be happy to do so.
You mean you want for me to cite your entire post history?
Which claim are you asking about? Your idiocy is common knowledge. That was the only claim I made.
You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon. ::)
Which claim are you asking about? Your idiocy is common knowledge. That was the only claim I made.
Are you all still here?
You lost the debate when you started saying mad shit like 'outer space is not a vacuum' & 'the gas laws are not thermodynamics'...
There is no point in further 'debating' such insanity.
But you need to get the last word in, as that is shill-protocol 101.
So we will carry on!
It was subtext.You sound like that asstronut who punched the reporter in the face when he was asked if he was willing to swear on the bible that he went to the moon. ::)And you sound like that idiot "reporter" who lured the astronaut to an interview under false pretenses and then proceeded to call him a liar, a coward and thief after demanding that he swear on a bible that he went to the moon. Be careful that some old timer doesn't deck you too, jroa.
Yeah, I am pretty sure the reporter said, "punch me in the face, come on coward, you won't do it, you liar." ::)
Are you all still here?
You lost the debate when you started saying mad shit like 'outer space is not a vacuum' & 'the gas laws are not thermodynamics'...
There is no point in further 'debating' such insanity.
But you need to get the last word in, as that is shill-protocol 101.
So we will carry on!
Are you all still here?
You lost the debate when you started saying mad shit like 'outer space is not a vacuum' & 'the gas laws are not thermodynamics'...
There is no point in further 'debating' such insanity.
But you need to get the last word in, as that is shill-protocol 101.
So we will carry on!
diddlie poop ?
Any last words?Object B is the exhaust.
Any last words?Congrats on getting the last post on the page.
Why not? You've shit up lots of threads with less.Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
So you're all going with shitting the place up with mad quibbling over the definition of a vacuum then?
So you admit you're shitting up the thread with mad quibbling?
LOL!!!
If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then why was the speed record set at an altitude above 100,000ft, where the air density is less than 1%?
The position that you need air to "push off of", naturally implies that the denser the air, the more thrust that can be achieved. So, that same aircraft should be able to attain a much higher speed if they tried it at a lower altitude! Bring that sucker down to 50,000, maybe hit Mach 25!!
Here's where you lost your side of the debate, old man:Why not? You've shit up lots of threads with less.Why not? A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.Please show me where you believe these laws are broken in rocketry.
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...
If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
So you're all going with shitting the place up with mad quibbling over the definition of a vacuum then?
So you admit you're shitting up the thread with mad quibbling?
LOL!!!
Any more Last Words?
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.
Thanks hello_there for the detailed analysis. I think it is important to address one of PLs strongest objection to Newton's 3rd, especially as it relates to rockets operating in a vacuum. His contention is that, due to the ideal gas law, any exhaust gasses will expand in to the vacuum of space and not be able to do work on the rocket.
I am of the view that the gasses are bestowed with a certain amount of kinetic energy from the exo-thermic combustion and that energy is what is used to provide the thrust to the rocket, not the expansion of the gas per se. Can you address this at all?
Gas expanding without work does occur, it just increases the temperature of the gas rather than exerting any work.
You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
:P :P Have you learnt nothing for Papa's wonderful tutorials? :P :PYou poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Not on nothing. The rocket pushes on the exhaust gas, ejecting it downwards. At the same time the exhaust gas pushes the rocket up. It's Newton's 3rd law, the one you keep on posting?
But if you don't agree on how Newton's 3rd law is applied here, I also did the calculation without Newton's 3rd law. Surpirse surprise, the results are the same! So you can prove my math wrong by showing your math, agree with my math, or the fact that you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law. Sure you can keep dodging and avoiding, which will obviously imply the third option, the "don't understand" one.
You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Not on nothing. The rocket pushes on the exhaust gas, ejecting it downwards. At the same time the exhaust gas pushes the rocket up. It's Newton's 3rd law, the one you keep on posting?
But if you don't agree on how Newton's 3rd law is applied here, I also did the calculation without Newton's 3rd law. Surpirse surprise, the results are the same! So you can prove my math wrong by showing your math, agree with my math, or the fact that you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law. Sure you can keep dodging and avoiding, which will obviously imply the third option, the "don't understand" one.
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.Poor Papa, still can't comprehend that the law of Conservation of Momentum also proves rockets work
Space is not really a vacuum
So you can prove my math wrong by showing your math, agree with my math, or the fact that you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law. Sure you can keep dodging and avoiding, which will obviously imply the third option, the "don't understand" one.
So, Papa, please show us working in deriving the thrust of a rocket in terms of:
Mass flow rate,
Exhaust velocity,
Area of nozzle,
Exhaust pressure and
External pressure.If you cannot do this (I'll allow you to "copy and paste" from a reputable source), we will all that you are nothing more than a bag of hot air.
*Yawn!*
You really should try to remember the nonsense you write when drunk, Geoff...
Here's where you blew it:Space is not really a vacuum
Any more Last Words?
So you can prove my math wrong by showing your math, agree with my math, or the fact that you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law.
48 out of 56 people have been correct all along.
Here's where you blew it:Space is not really a vacuumAny more Last Words?
Interstellar Gas:From What is the Interstellar Medium? (http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html)
Approximately 99% of the interstellar medium is composed of interstellar gas, and of its mass, about 75% is in the form of hydrogen (either molecular or atomic), with the remaining 25% as helium. The interstellar gas consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as well as charged particles, such as ions and electrons. This gas is extremely dilute, with an average density of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. (For comparison, the air we breathe has a density of approximately 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter.) Even though the interstellar gas is very dilute, the amount of matter adds up over the vast distances between the stars.
You can never come up with the goods, so you go on with more ranting and raving.
You can never come up with the goods, so you go on with more ranting and raving.
So you can prove my math wrong by showing your math, agree with my math, or the fact that you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law.
It's not your math.
You copy-pasted all of it from some mad disinfo-site.
So the fact that you lied about this means I don't have to do a damn thing.
Papa doesn't do math and explain! Papa only does rant, rave, accuse and lie.So you can prove my math wrong by showing your math, agree with my math, or the fact that you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law.
It's not your math.
You copy-pasted all of it from some mad disinfo-site.
So the fact that you lied about this means I don't have to do a damn thing.
I lied? And it's a fact? Is it really the best you can do? Haha good luck looking it up on the internet. Unless you can hack into my hard drive, you're not gonna find anything. And those sad looking drawings in the calculation? Took me several tries and with different writing tools.(http://s33.postimg.org/srn8cc1zj/20160612_173111.jpg[/center])
I told you already, you should have just stopped pages ago with what's left of your dignity, now you're like a trapped mouse trying to escape.
But how about this for a chance of escape. If you think my math is wrong, then why don't you show me your math, explaining how the rocket works in the atmosphere and how it doesn't work in a vacuum? How about that?
Papa doesn't do math and explain! Papa only does rant, rave, accuse and lie.
It's not your math.
You copy-pasted all of it from some mad disinfo-site.
And those sad looking drawings in the calculation? Took me several tries and with different writing tools.
48 out of 56 people have been correct all along.
56 votes, yet the poll says only 53 members have voted, Einstein?48 out of 53 people? Seriously? That's even better!
That math was copy-pasted off a NASA site.Which site? And, emm, THE LINK?
So you're shit at drawing as well as a liar.So you agree that shit drawing is my drawing? But you said I copy-pasted it from NASA website? Make up your mind, dumb ass!
And it got Newton's 3rd Law wrong anyway, as it just took the Force the rocket was creating & reversed it, ignoring the fact it had to interact with an external mass to create a force-pairing.And the math? You said you understand it perfectly, so where's your math?
the fact that you have had to resort to such gibberish shows YOU have lost, not I.Considering you are a troll, then, I guess so, you got what you wanted. Congrats. But the fact that you are pretending to be a flat earther, then no, you totally got owned.
Newton's Third LawAnybody keeping track of this shit? Has he done 100 yet?
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts ...
Do we really have to keep watching this train wreck to encourage him to get to 100, or will he just do that on his own anyway? He definitely doesn't know what he's talking about, or perhaps he does and he's playing stupid, but either way it's been shown that the character known as Papa Legba doesn't understand Newton's 3rd law. The thread was a resounding success in that respect. If he'd like to finish his marathon to 100, that's cool, but maybe we should give him some privacy to get the tears and sulking out of his system. I say let him have the rest of this thread to himself.You people have ranted on and on and yet still know Papa is correct, yet you must keep up the general ridicule attempts so that those looking in will hopefully believe your bullshit and forget about the real truth that Papa is teaching them.
And the math?
if what Papa Legba says actually happened, there would be no conservation of momentum.
Also, this:if what Papa Legba says actually happened, there would be no conservation of momentum.
Please explain how the Free Expansion of a gas into a vacuum violates COM.
I imagine every scientist who has bothered wading through all your disinfo-bullshit will be VERY interested in your answer.
I was asking for your math, flat head! Here's the un-cherry-picked full quote:And the math?
The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.
I already told you this, dunce-cap.
And the math? You said you understand it perfectly, so where's your math?
The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.If you don't like my N3 interpretation, then look at the ones without N3! In fact, the prove that rocket works in vacuum is done without N3. Learn how to read!
And if the math is yours & you understand it so well, then why did you have to copy-paste it rather than write it here so that it could be gone through line by line?So I copy and pasted it because I posted it as images? With *.png format, it immediately counts as a copy-pasted material? That's some fucked up logic. You can't beat my math, so you attack the format, how creative ::). But seriously, attacking the format is by far the lowest kind of attack I've ever received. And even if it was copy-pasted, why would it automatically be incorrect?
And you are ignoring the rather odd fact that only 53 members have voted, yet 56 votes have been cast...Yes I do suspect, suspect those votes in your favor are fake! But don't ask me, I don't run this website. Newsflash: it's called "THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY", any idea who runs it? That's right, ask your fellow flat earthers why the numbers are messed up.
Please explain this, as it seems suspicious.
You people have ranted on and on and yet still know Papa is correctAnd he thought you were the correct one ::)
That's not the part that violates conservation of momentum. It's the part where the exhaust is rapidly and forcefully ejected out of the combustion chamber (with momentum!) and somehow doesn't have any offsetting momentum in the opposite direction against the rocket. But you knew that.
Tl;dr bullshit from a disinfo-parrot who cannot understand that math based on false assumptions is worthless.
Why do gases that move from a compressed state to not compressed state lose energy?That's not the part that violates conservation of momentum. It's the part where the exhaust is rapidly and forcefully ejected out of the combustion chamber (with momentum!) and somehow doesn't have any offsetting momentum in the opposite direction against the rocket. But you knew that.
You just said that free expansion both does & does not violate COM.
But you knew that.
Gas expands freely into a vacuum without doing any work: FACT.
In doing so it does not violate COM: FACT.
The formula you are looking for is Work=Pressure x Increase in Volume; when Pressure=Zero - as it can only be in a vacuum - then Work=Zero.
You really need to stop making up physics then embroidering them with mathematical nonsense in order to sustain your sci-fi bullshit fantasies.Tl;dr bullshit from a disinfo-parrot who cannot understand that math based on false assumptions is worthless.
As you were, shill.
Tl;dr bullshit from a disinfo-parrot who cannot understand that math based on false assumptions is worthless.
As you were, shill.
I was asking for your math, flat head! Here's the un-cherry-picked full quote:And the math?
The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.
I already told you this, dunce-cap.And the math? You said you understand it perfectly, so where's your math?The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.If you don't like my N3 interpretation, then look at the ones without N3! In fact, the prove that rocket works in vacuum is done without N3. Learn how to read!And if the math is yours & you understand it so well, then why did you have to copy-paste it rather than write it here so that it could be gone through line by line?So I copy and pasted it because I posted it as images? With *.png format, it immediately counts as a copy-pasted material? That's some fucked up logic. You can't beat my math, so you attack the format, how creative ::). But seriously, attacking the format is by far the lowest kind of attack I've ever received. And even if it was copy-pasted, why would it automatically be incorrect?
And why I didn't write it in the native text editor? Well, can you embed and edit mathtype objects in it? Or can you put right-alligned tab stops with dots? Go try it yourself!And you are ignoring the rather odd fact that only 53 members have voted, yet 56 votes have been cast...Yes I do suspect, suspect those votes in your favor are fake! But don't ask me, I don't run this website. Newsflash: it's called "THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY", any idea who runs it? That's right, ask your fellow flat earthers why the numbers are messed up.
Please explain this, as it seems suspicious.You people have ranted on and on and yet still know Papa is correctAnd he thought you were the correct one ::)
Or is he your alt? Because if he isn't, then you're such a disappointment.
So why don't you provide us with the math based on your correct interpretation of N3?And the math?
The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.
Do we really have to keep watching this train wreck to encourage him to get to 100, or will he just do that on his own anyway? He definitely doesn't know what he's talking about, or perhaps he does and he's playing stupid, but either way it's been shown that the character known as Papa Legba doesn't understand Newton's 3rd law. The thread was a resounding success in that respect. If he'd like to finish his marathon to 100, that's cool, but maybe we should give him some privacy to get the tears and sulking out of his system. I say let him have the rest of this thread to himself.You people have ranted on and on and yet still know Papa is correct, yet you must keep up the general ridicule attempts so that those looking in will hopefully believe your bullshit and forget about the real truth that Papa is teaching them.
Papa is correct and you shills are not. Simple as that really.
OK the jig is up, rockets really work via repulsion. To get them to move an inanimate rocket is show PL's posts, in an act of desperation the inanimate rocket comes to life tries to get as far the fuck away from the planet PL lives on. If you show the rocket more or dumber posts by PL the greater the speed or carrying capacity.
Object B is PL
Hey Papa,As Papa would say...comedy gold!!
You know that page you copied Newton's 3rd law from;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Well, further down there's an exercise;
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Click on the "See answer" button and you get the following;
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You're using a source that says rockets work in space to bleat about rockets not working in space! How ironic...
Hey Papa,
You know that page you copied Newton's 3rd law from;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Well, further down there's an exercise;
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Click on the "See answer" button and you get the following;
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You're using a source that says rockets work in space to bleat about rockets not working in space! How ironic...
Hey Papa,
You know that page you copied Newton's 3rd law from;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Well, further down there's an exercise;
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Click on the "See answer" button and you get the following;
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You're using a source that says rockets work in space to bleat about rockets not working in space! How ironic...
Oh snap, well done! I don't know if Papa can even get out of this.
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
If you made yourself a man sized rocket and wanted to put it onto your roof but to get it up to your roof, you have to put your head inside of it so you can use your hands to grip the ladder.Hey Papa,
You know that page you copied Newton's 3rd law from;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Well, further down there's an exercise;
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Click on the "See answer" button and you get the following;
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You're using a source that says rockets work in space to bleat about rockets not working in space! How ironic...
Oh snap, well done! I don't know if Papa can even get out of this.
The original quote on N3 was mine.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
I don't think Papa checked the source at the time he copied and pasted it, or the ninety nine times after that.
Papa I spent a goodly portion of my Sunday brushing up on thermodynamics and gas laws, could you perhaps point me in the right direction? All the sources I've found lead me to believe rockets will work in a vacuum, free expansion of gas will not stop the rocket from working.
The thing is the rocket is there (stopping the gas expanding in that direction so "free expansion" doesn't happen on account of the gas hitting the rocket...
But I'm no chemical engineer.
The Q&A were a test of observation; look what you get when you put them together:This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Observant pupils would notice that; idiots like yourself would not.
'Because nonsense'...
LOL!!!
Also lol at the fact your name miraculously changed from 'luggersailor' to 'joshperplexed' on another thread in the time it took for me to reply to your post...
Proof of sock-puppeting which thereby invalidates your silly fake poll.
Toodle-pip, shit at your shit job shills!
If you made yourself a man sized rocket and wanted to put it onto your roof but to get it up to your roof, you have to put your head inside of it so you can use your hands to grip the ladder.Hey Papa,
You know that page you copied Newton's 3rd law from;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Well, further down there's an exercise;
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Click on the "See answer" button and you get the following;
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You're using a source that says rockets work in space to bleat about rockets not working in space! How ironic...
Oh snap, well done! I don't know if Papa can even get out of this.
The original quote on N3 was mine.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
I don't think Papa checked the source at the time he copied and pasted it, or the ninety nine times after that.
Papa I spent a goodly portion of my Sunday brushing up on thermodynamics and gas laws, could you perhaps point me in the right direction? All the sources I've found lead me to believe rockets will work in a vacuum, free expansion of gas will not stop the rocket from working.
The thing is the rocket is there (stopping the gas expanding in that direction so "free expansion" doesn't happen on account of the gas hitting the rocket...
But I'm no chemical engineer.
Let's call your head and body, the fuel pushing against the inside of your rocket. Your ladder has rungs for your legs to step onto and up. The rungs provide the resistance to your push of your legs to allow you to keep that rocket moving upwards.
Your legs are the energy that pushes on the rungs to propel you and your rocket onto the roof.
In real rocket workings, it would be the fuel compressing against the atmosphere with the atmosphere being the rungs of your ladder, against you and that rocket you are under.
Now take away the rungs of the ladder and try your best to get that rocket onto the roof. You can't because your energy is basically allowed to exit the rocket with no work done to push that rocket in the opposite direction. This would be known as space, or the vacuum, or basically the free expansion of matter ejected from the rocket nozzle.
You need a resistance for a rocket to work. It cannot work by just pushing on itself without an external resistance to that push. Atmosphere provides this.
Some people have different ideas of how free expansion works. The truth is, there's no such thing as free expansion in its entirety. There's always a resistance. However, the resistance can be so weak as to be rendered as good as free expansion. Basically this is an extreme ultra low pressure environment - or to put it more plainly, space as we are told it is.
The simple thing is, if we have close to free expansion of any matter ejected from anything, then you cannot have a reactionary resistance to the expanded mass inside your container/rocket, or whatever.
You are learning nothing and likely never will.
Please don't spam up my thread with willful ignorance, thanks.
If i jump in the air and throw a bowling ball my trajectory changes (tried it)
Therefore the rocket "pushing on itself" is a null point.
Back to arguing about thermodynamics and gas laws please I was learning something.
If you made yourself a man sized rocket and wanted to put it onto your roof but to get it up to your roof, you have to put your head inside of it so you can use your hands to grip the ladder.Hey Papa,
You know that page you copied Newton's 3rd law from;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Well, further down there's an exercise;
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Click on the "See answer" button and you get the following;
Answer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You're using a source that says rockets work in space to bleat about rockets not working in space! How ironic...
Oh snap, well done! I don't know if Papa can even get out of this.
The original quote on N3 was mine.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
I don't think Papa checked the source at the time he copied and pasted it, or the ninety nine times after that.
Papa I spent a goodly portion of my Sunday brushing up on thermodynamics and gas laws, could you perhaps point me in the right direction? All the sources I've found lead me to believe rockets will work in a vacuum, free expansion of gas will not stop the rocket from working.
The thing is the rocket is there (stopping the gas expanding in that direction so "free expansion" doesn't happen on account of the gas hitting the rocket...
But I'm no chemical engineer.
Let's call your head and body, the fuel pushing against the inside of your rocket. Your ladder has rungs for your legs to step onto and up. The rungs provide the resistance to your push of your legs to allow you to keep that rocket moving upwards.
Your legs are the energy that pushes on the rungs to propel you and your rocket onto the roof.
In real rocket workings, it would be the fuel compressing against the atmosphere with the atmosphere being the rungs of your ladder, against you and that rocket you are under.
Now take away the rungs of the ladder and try your best to get that rocket onto the roof. You can't because your energy is basically allowed to exit the rocket with no work done to push that rocket in the opposite direction. This would be known as space, or the vacuum, or basically the free expansion of matter ejected from the rocket nozzle.
You need a resistance for a rocket to work. It cannot work by just pushing on itself without an external resistance to that push. Atmosphere provides this.
Some people have different ideas of how free expansion works. The truth is, there's no such thing as free expansion in its entirety. There's always a resistance. However, the resistance can be so weak as to be rendered as good as free expansion. Basically this is an extreme ultra low pressure environment - or to put it more plainly, space as we are told it is.
The simple thing is, if we have close to free expansion of any matter ejected from anything, then you cannot have a reactionary resistance to the expanded mass inside your container/rocket, or whatever.
LOL!!!
Back to 'Throwing a mass of gas in a vacuum'...
Again.
Anti-physics incoming!
You need a resistance for a rocket to work. It cannot work by just pushing on itself without an external resistance to that push. Atmosphere provides this.
LOL!!!
Back to 'Throwing a mass of gas in a vacuum'...
You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
And those sad looking drawings in the calculation? Took me several tries and with different writing tools.
56 votes, yet the poll says only 53 members have voted, Einstein?
Someone been cheating?
And those sad looking drawings in the calculation? Took me several tries and with different writing tools.
56 votes, yet the poll says only 53 members have voted, Einstein?
Someone been cheating?
You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a ...
You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Papa's probably gonna shout you stupid shills, comedy gold, yadda yadda yadda, then another copy of thisNewton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a ...
Oh wait, he can't, because we all know it's actually against him now.
It was at that moment, Papa Legba knew, he fucked up ;D ;D ;D
Stop talking to yourself you nutter.
Quote function's still disabled btw...
Come on, you ::) KNOW ::) Papa knows more than any source he quotes from, so he corrects the quotes as he posts, and leaves all the erroneous bits out!LOL!!!
Back to 'Throwing a mass of gas in a vacuum'...
Well, that's pretty much what rocket does in vacuum. Again, your source says so
(http://s32.postimg.org/ioigdiwid/Capture.png)
What you are all doing here today is truly ruinous.
You have disabled the quote function, are piling on gaslighting sock-puppeted garbage, replying to my posts before I even post them, forcing me to waste time revising them, & generally doing all you can to block me from speaking freely.
Sadly, all this proves is that this forum is completely controlled by shills.
No doubt whatsoever.
Seems you have decided that fucking with me is more important than this forum's credibility; because no neutral in their right mind would join such a place.
Worth a lol?
Oh yes; worth a LMFAO in fact, especially as rabinoz just did it again!
What you are all doing here today is truly ruinous.
You have disabled the quote function, are piling on gaslighting sock-puppeted garbage, replying to my posts before I even post them, forcing me to waste time revising them, & generally doing all you can to block me from speaking freely.
Sadly, all this proves is that this forum is completely controlled by shills.
No doubt whatsoever.
Seems you have decided that fucking with me is more important than this forum's credibility; because no neutral in their right mind would join such a place.
Worth a lol?
Oh yes; worth a LMFAO in fact, especially as rabinoz just did it again!
Oh yes, of course, I disabled your quote function! Watch out, I'm gonna transform your house into a pumpkin! Kazaam!!! Whooosh!!! Toodle Pip!!!
How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
If the fuel expands, then would you agree that it would squash against the sides of the rocket and then be squeezed out through the nozzle?How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Explain how you can push anything. What do you mean? Because the fuel ignites, expands, collides with the walls of the interior of the rocket, and is then shot back.
If the fuel expands, then would you agree that it would squash against the sides of the rocket and then be squeezed out through the nozzle?How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Explain how you can push anything. What do you mean? Because the fuel ignites, expands, collides with the walls of the interior of the rocket, and is then shot back.
And if that's the case - in your space - wouldn't that fuel then expand further - or freely - or close to freely - expand into the extreme low pressure environment of so called space, meaning it cannot cause any push back to force the rocket the other way. It could only compress due to expansion until it hits the nozzle and then it's dispersed freely, or almost freely into so called space.
There cannot be any motion in the opposite direction due to this, almost free expansion.
Your trouble is, you believe matter just freely collides like a person kicking a football at a wall. It's a massive mistake a lot of you make.
You make this mistake because you refuse to learn the truth.
Go back to sleep. ;DIf the fuel expands, then would you agree that it would squash against the sides of the rocket and then be squeezed out through the nozzle?How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Explain how you can push anything. What do you mean? Because the fuel ignites, expands, collides with the walls of the interior of the rocket, and is then shot back.
And if that's the case - in your space - wouldn't that fuel then expand further - or freely - or close to freely - expand into the extreme low pressure environment of so called space, meaning it cannot cause any push back to force the rocket the other way. It could only compress due to expansion until it hits the nozzle and then it's dispersed freely, or almost freely into so called space.
There cannot be any motion in the opposite direction due to this, almost free expansion.
Your trouble is, you believe matter just freely collides like a person kicking a football at a wall. It's a massive mistake a lot of you make.
You make this mistake because you refuse to learn the truth.
Uh, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. What do you care what the gas does AFTER it hits the nozzle? It's irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the expanding gas collides with the interior of the rocket, and then bounces back out of the nozzle. Even if there was no temperature induced expansion, and the gas was let to expand freely inside the tank, the rocket would STILL be propelled forwards, because gas "wants" to expand to ALL directions, it can't just expand to one direction. Since it would try to expand into the walls of the rocket ignition chamber, it would push it forwards. It's like inflating a ballon in order to push something.
"It could only compress due to expansion"
It "compresses" due to "expansion"? What? What does that even mean? How is this possible?
Yes. That squashing against the sides of the rocket engine is the force pairing that causes the rocket to move.If the fuel expands, then would you agree that it would squash against the sides of the rocket and then be squeezed out through the nozzle?How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Explain how you can push anything. What do you mean? Because the fuel ignites, expands, collides with the walls of the interior of the rocket, and is then shot back.
And if that's the case - in your space - wouldn't that fuel then expand further - or freely - or close to freely - expand into the extreme low pressure environment of so called space, meaning it cannot cause any push back to force the rocket the other way. It could only compress due to expansion until it hits the nozzle and then it's dispersed freely, or almost freely into so called space.True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.
Go back to sleep. ;DIf the fuel expands, then would you agree that it would squash against the sides of the rocket and then be squeezed out through the nozzle?How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.You poor bastards.
Just listen to yourselves...
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.
Sad stuff.
Fucking hell man, THE ROCKET DOESN'T PUSH ON "NOTHING", IT PUSHES ON THE FUEL!!! Just try to put this in your tiny mind and comprehend it!
Explain how you can push anything. What do you mean? Because the fuel ignites, expands, collides with the walls of the interior of the rocket, and is then shot back.
And if that's the case - in your space - wouldn't that fuel then expand further - or freely - or close to freely - expand into the extreme low pressure environment of so called space, meaning it cannot cause any push back to force the rocket the other way. It could only compress due to expansion until it hits the nozzle and then it's dispersed freely, or almost freely into so called space.
There cannot be any motion in the opposite direction due to this, almost free expansion.
Your trouble is, you believe matter just freely collides like a person kicking a football at a wall. It's a massive mistake a lot of you make.
You make this mistake because you refuse to learn the truth.
Uh, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. What do you care what the gas does AFTER it hits the nozzle? It's irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the expanding gas collides with the interior of the rocket, and then bounces back out of the nozzle. Even if there was no temperature induced expansion, and the gas was let to expand freely inside the tank, the rocket would STILL be propelled forwards, because gas "wants" to expand to ALL directions, it can't just expand to one direction. Since it would try to expand into the walls of the rocket ignition chamber, it would push it forwards. It's like inflating a ballon in order to push something.
"It could only compress due to expansion"
It "compresses" due to "expansion"? What? What does that even mean? How is this possible?
You seem to be having something of a crisis...
The simple disabling of a function is in no way comparable to turning a house into a pumpkin.
It is just one click of a mouse away...
If you have access to the controls, of course.
But carry on with your mad denials; they are VERY convincing, I'm sure!
How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.
That'd be great if it actually used Newton's 3rd Law.
But it doesn't therefore it's worthless.
How can it push on the fuel. Explain how it manages to push on the fuel to make it move. Don't just say it shoots mass out the back end and just moves. Explain why. Try and do it without a big kiddified rant about my mother or whatever.and he didn't ask for Newton's 3rd Law.
Quote function still disabled btw!
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
Consider the interaction between a male and female figure skater in pair figure skating. A woman (m = 45 kg) is kneeling on the shoulders of a man (m = 70 kg); the pair is moving along the ice at 1.5 m/s. The man gracefully tosses the woman forward through the air and onto the ice. The woman receives the forward force and the man receives a backward force. The force on the man is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force on the woman. Yet the acceleration of the woman is greater than the acceleration of the man due to the smaller mass of the woman.
True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.Ok answer me a question.
True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.Ok answer me a question.
If I placed you inside a cardboard box laid horizontal with legs bent and feet touching the closed un-taped lid on on the right side and your head touching the closed well taped lid on the left side, then asked you to stretch out - which way would the box move?
How about answering the question I posed before I move on.True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.Ok answer me a question.
If I placed you inside a cardboard box laid horizontal with legs bent and feet touching the closed un-taped lid on on the right side and your head touching the closed well taped lid on the left side, then asked you to stretch out - which way would the box move?
So, now you accept non gas mass as an analogy ? :D If somehow you launch your legs off during stretching, it could work :D
How about answering the question I posed before I move on.True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.Ok answer me a question.
If I placed you inside a cardboard box laid horizontal with legs bent and feet touching the closed un-taped lid on on the right side and your head touching the closed well taped lid on the left side, then asked you to stretch out - which way would the box move?
So, now you accept non gas mass as an analogy ? :D If somehow you launch your legs off during stretching, it could work :D
How about answering the question I posed before I move on.True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.Ok answer me a question.
If I placed you inside a cardboard box laid horizontal with legs bent and feet touching the closed un-taped lid on on the right side and your head touching the closed well taped lid on the left side, then asked you to stretch out - which way would the box move?
So, now you accept non gas mass as an analogy ? :D If somehow you launch your legs off during stretching, it could work :D
It won't move. Now what was your point?Why won't it move?
Friction.Explain what you mean, clearly.
The move mass did not leave. After you push your feet out you have to provide an opposite to stop them.
That's one of your problems, scepti. You keep asking the wrong questions. A better question would be something like:True, but once the expanding propellant leaves the rocket engine, it has no effect on the rocket whatsoever. It's only the expansion inside the rocket engine that we're concerned with.Ok answer me a question.
If I placed you inside a cardboard box laid horizontal with legs bent and feet touching the closed un-taped lid on on the right side and your head touching the closed well taped lid on the left side, then asked you to stretch out - which way would the box move?
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
STFU markjo; everyone knows your jokes are shit.
Now THIS is funny:This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Also funny is the fact the name of the poster miraculously changed from 'luggersailor' to 'joshperplexed' on another thread in the time it took for me to reply their post...
Why?
Because shills.
So off you go, shills; tell Newton & Kelvin again just how wrong they were!Newton was just fine.
Says you & 50 sock-puppets on a flat earth forum...Yes, that should be a subtle hint that maybe it really is you who is wrong.
So off you go, shills; tell Newton & Kelvin again just how wrong they were!
Says you & 50 sock-puppets on a flat earth forum...Yes, that should be a subtle hint that maybe it really is you who is wrong.
What, that 50 fake people on a fake flat earth forum think I don't understand N3?Well, it isn't just us on the forum.
Friction from the ground.This is where mass against atmosphere creates the force that you people believe is not evident. You people simply believe that mass alone can create a force against another mass, without the intervention of an atmosphere. It baffles me as to why people believe this utter nonsense.
Since inertia actually exists. The guy will start the movement of his legs with a force. To stop them he needs to provide another force.
If the guy was in the box which sat on a skateboard and he threw out a medicine ball, he would move.
1. You still can't explain how a force is transferred.Friction from the ground.This is where mass against atmosphere creates the force that you people believe is not evident. You people simply believe that mass alone can create a force against another mass, without the intervention of an atmosphere. It baffles me as to why people believe this utter nonsense.
Since inertia actually exists. The guy will start the movement of his legs with a force. To stop them he needs to provide another force.
If the guy was in the box which sat on a skateboard and he threw out a medicine ball, he would move.
Buoyancy should give you a massive massive clue as to how mass and atmosphere work with and against each other. The more mass, the greater displacement. Think about it.
I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.1. You still can't explain how a force is transferred.Friction from the ground.This is where mass against atmosphere creates the force that you people believe is not evident. You people simply believe that mass alone can create a force against another mass, without the intervention of an atmosphere. It baffles me as to why people believe this utter nonsense.
Since inertia actually exists. The guy will start the movement of his legs with a force. To stop them he needs to provide another force.
If the guy was in the box which sat on a skateboard and he threw out a medicine ball, he would move.
Buoyancy should give you a massive massive clue as to how mass and atmosphere work with and against each other. The more mass, the greater displacement. Think about it.
2. Ever swing on a swing set?
3. Displacement is from volume, not mass.
4. Lulz
And you ran away while pissing your pants.I can't help those who are not capable of being helped. One day when you grow up, have a think about what's been told to you.
I said you're the ones who think Newton is wrong you double-shitposting time-wasting psycho.
And you do, because you think an object can exert both forces required by N3 on itself & still produce motion.
Which is the same as claiming you could lift yourself off the ground by pulling on your bootstraps.
Which is mad bullshit.
Plus lol at you agreeing with me that you're all sock-puppets too...
Dipshit.
I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.
If I had a penny for every time you pipe up with nothing to say.I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.
If we had a nickle for every time you have said this.
I end up not saying much to you for reasons obvious to everyone except you and your bestie, Papa Legba.If I had a penny for every time you pipe up with nothing to say.I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.
If we had a nickle for every time you have said this.
I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.1. You still can't explain how a force is transferred.Friction from the ground.This is where mass against atmosphere creates the force that you people believe is not evident. You people simply believe that mass alone can create a force against another mass, without the intervention of an atmosphere. It baffles me as to why people believe this utter nonsense.
Since inertia actually exists. The guy will start the movement of his legs with a force. To stop them he needs to provide another force.
If the guy was in the box which sat on a skateboard and he threw out a medicine ball, he would move.
Buoyancy should give you a massive massive clue as to how mass and atmosphere work with and against each other. The more mass, the greater displacement. Think about it.
2. Ever swing on a swing set?
3. Displacement is from volume, not mass.
4. Lulz
Keep it that way and save yourself precious internet minutes.I end up not saying much to you for reasons obvious to everyone except you and your bestie, Papa Legba.If I had a penny for every time you pipe up with nothing to say.I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.
If we had a nickle for every time you have said this.
Keep it that way and save yourself precious internet minutes.I end up not saying much to you for reasons obvious to everyone except you and your bestie, Papa Legba.If I had a penny for every time you pipe up with nothing to say.I have no more wish to try and help you. You carry on with your ways.
If we had a nickle for every time you have said this.
Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
I understand you have no rebuttal.And you ran away while pissing your pants.I can't help those who are not capable of being helped. One day when you grow up, have a think about what's been told to you.
I understand you are totally devoid of common sense and logic and cannot provide anything remotely legitimate.I understand you have no rebuttal.And you ran away while pissing your pants.I can't help those who are not capable of being helped. One day when you grow up, have a think about what's been told to you.
Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.
How does a rocket engine push off the atmosphere?The same way you would push away water when you're swimming. The only difference is in the friction.
Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.How does a rocket engine push off the atmosphere?The same way you would push away water when you're swimming. The only difference is in the friction.
All a rocket does is super heat fuel by mixing it with oxygen under pressure, which creates a massive void in the thrusting burning fuel which expands into the atmosphere, pushing it away. The atmosphere equally responds by squeezing right back, creating the necessary push and squeeze needed to set the rocket in motion. Like a big springboard or a spring that just keeps on boing boing-ing until there's no more pressure applied to it. Or to put it bluntly - until the rocket fuel is spent.
Careful what you come back with, T-bag.
I call bullshit on this one.Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.
Ok I rest my case, so no swinging in thin air/vacuum ? :D 8)Correct, no swinging.
Your son is energy against atmosphere. It's the reason why he operates, as well as you and everything else that has energy.Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.How does a rocket engine push off the atmosphere?The same way you would push away water when you're swimming. The only difference is in the friction.
All a rocket does is super heat fuel by mixing it with oxygen under pressure, which creates a massive void in the thrusting burning fuel which expands into the atmosphere, pushing it away. The atmosphere equally responds by squeezing right back, creating the necessary push and squeeze needed to set the rocket in motion. Like a big springboard or a spring that just keeps on boing boing-ing until there's no more pressure applied to it. Or to put it bluntly - until the rocket fuel is spent.
Careful what you come back with, T-bag.
Holy shit! Are you serious??
My son is an AIR PUMP now!! Who'd have thunk it?!?
Tell me why you call bullshit on it?I call bullshit on this one.Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.
Theother one is wrong too, but this has been elaborated many, many times.
Anyhoo, if every physics teacher in the world thinks I don't understand N3, how come I'm reading an article by one right now that describes NASA's interpretation of N3 as 'wrong'?My guess is that you're lying about the article, but since you obviously won't share a link to that article, I guess we'll never know for sure.
Imagine a child on a swing. It moves its body only on the highest point of the swing, about a distance of 0.5m, approximately. Then it swings a distance of about 3m through the air and is subject to friction (or compresses the air in front of him, whichever you prefer). If the movement of the child would be because of the compression of air, it would not be able to sustain its motion, yet it can.Picture the child on a swing under water. Now picture the child using the bottom of the pool to push back on that swing off the tiled floor.
The movement on the swing happens because on the highest points of the swing you alter your center of mass to be behind the swing (in other words, you shift your center of mass outwards), thus creating angular momentum.
That is strange, because when I move forward on a swing, i feel the Wind blowing in my face (not in my back, creating your wave-like Push).Your trouble is, you will not give the atmosphere the credit because it kills off what you've been told about a lot of stuff.
Also, next time you go ice-skating (very small friction), try to create such a wave-like Push by the air. I bet you will not be able to do so.
If you want to know how a swing works, Google is your friend, there are very detailed explanations out there.
Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
Imagine a child on a swing. It moves its body only on the highest point of the swing, about a distance of 0.5m, approximately. Then it swings a distance of about 3m through the air and is subject to friction (or compresses the air in front of him, whichever you prefer). If the movement of the child would be because of the compression of air, it would not be able to sustain its motion, yet it can.Picture the child on a swing under water. Now picture the child using the bottom of the pool to push back on that swing off the tiled floor.
The movement on the swing happens because on the highest points of the swing you alter your center of mass to be behind the swing (in other words, you shift your center of mass outwards), thus creating angular momentum.
What's happened?
The child has pushed the water away from him/her and has stacked it up a little behind him/her. That higher pressure created by the push has created a lower pressure to the front of the child, but now the water that was pushed away, is now pushing back to equalise the pressure, which in turn pushed the child forward.
This will continue to happen each way in smaller pushes if the child doesn't use his/her body to keep the momentum up.
To keep the momentum, the child would be kicking the water away and "up" whilst the childs back would be pushing the water "down"...
By doing this see saw act, it creates a wave motion each way, which keeps the child swinging.
It's purely displacing the water, just like displacing air. The only difference is density and resistance to it and how much it's overcome by energy applied..
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Oh okay, sorry, I didn't know we were making up physics as we went along... That's my bad..When you don't want to ggrasp something, it wiill never be grasped. I can't help you on that score. You'll just have to see if time and patience makes you actually go into detective mode.
But seriously, that's not how anything works. The air doesn't compress enough to push a butterfly forward, let alone a child on a swing! If it were that easy to compress air, I don't think we'd need air compressors...Air will only compress enough or be pushed aside/up or whichever way by whatever energy is applied to it. A butterfly flies by flapping its wings. It doesn't need to push too hard because it doesn't have much mass to stay aloft.
You can easily show your explanation is false by putting an electric fan below the swing that pushes the "compressed air" away from the child. If you were correct, then the child shouldn't be able to continue swinging. I think we both know that won't happen.have you ever tried to walk against the wind?
But, I guess now you will try desperately to make up so more physics to make your model work...I don't need to make them up. It's all there staring you in the face, literally.
Yes if done properly.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
So if we put someone in a vacuum chamber and pumped out half the air, that person would then weigh about half their "normal" weight?
If we pumped in some air, say doubled it, that person would then weigh about twice as much?
Detective mode, huh? I think I'm starting to understand your problem...Oh okay, sorry, I didn't know we were making up physics as we went along... That's my bad..When you don't want to ggrasp something, it wiill never be grasped. I can't help you on that score. You'll just have to see if time and patience makes you actually go into detective mode.
You don't actually know how helicopters work, do you?But seriously, that's not how anything works. The air doesn't compress enough to push a butterfly forward, let alone a child on a swing! If it were that easy to compress air, I don't think we'd need air compressors...Air will only compress enough or be pushed aside/up or whichever way by whatever energy is applied to it. A butterfly flies by flapping its wings. It doesn't need to push too hard because it doesn't have much mass to stay aloft.
If you could flap your arms fast enough whilst holding two flat boards, then you could raise yourself into the air. The issue is, you would need to displace a lot of air very quickly to stay aloft.
Just like a helicopter rotates its blades faster and faster to gain height.
Apparently, you need to think about what I'm saying... Wind is completely irrelevant!You can easily show your explanation is false by putting an electric fan below the swing that pushes the "compressed air" away from the child. If you were correct, then the child shouldn't be able to continue swinging. I think we both know that won't happen.have you ever tried to walk against the wind?
Have you ever tried to run with the wind?
Think about what you're saying.
Yep, your stupidity is glaring!But, I guess now you will try desperately to make up so more physics to make your model work...I don't need to make them up. It's all there staring you in the face, literally.
Yes if done properly.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
So if we put someone in a vacuum chamber and pumped out half the air, that person would then weigh about half their "normal" weight?
If we pumped in some air, say doubled it, that person would then weigh about twice as much?
Ok let's have one last try with you, just for the hell of it.Yes if done properly.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
So if we put someone in a vacuum chamber and pumped out half the air, that person would then weigh about half their "normal" weight?
If we pumped in some air, say doubled it, that person would then weigh about twice as much?
Okay, you are officially too ignorant or stupid to continue talking to.... It's hard to believe that people can continue to be so uneducated about such things with modern technology... If you ever post such nonsense in a science forum, please let me know, so I can cook up a bag of popcorn!
wrong. I've been in an altitude chamber depressurized to 30,000 feet. If what you were saying were true then I should have weighed about 1/3 normal. I did not and neither did anything else.Yes if done properly.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
So if we put someone in a vacuum chamber and pumped out half the air, that person would then weigh about half their "normal" weight?
If we pumped in some air, say doubled it, that person would then weigh about twice as much?
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
He'll say something about the porousness of the Styrofoam.
His model is based on surface area or something, along with its porousness. In his model, a 10cmx10x10 cube of lead would "weigh" more than a 12.4 cm diameter sphere of lead (both volume of 1000 cm3) because the cube has a surface area of 600 cm2 vs. the 483.05 of the sphere.
You can't do this experiment in an actual air-evacuated chamber because you have to zero out the scale or something, ie place a brick on a scale in a vacuum chamber and suck out all the air. Zero out the scale, place the brick on it again or something. But then your act of putting the brick on the scale adds energy to it or something.
It's pretty stupid.
They don't.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
They don't.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Yep, so you'll understand what I'm getting at, right?They don't.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Precisely. Lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, so it is heavier than styrofoam which is about 80% air.
Yep, so you'll understand what I'm getting at, right?They don't.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Precisely. Lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, so it is heavier than styrofoam which is about 80% air.
Wait a tic. So lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, meaning it must weigh more than styrofoam because styrofoam is only 20% styrofoam and 80% atmosphere. So the lead displaces more atmosphere.
So what about tungsten? Is that 100% tungsten? 150% titanium (you know, because it is denser than lead and one cubic meter of tungsten weighs more than a cubic meter of lead)? And Platinum? Gold? How much atmosphere do you think is in solid ice?
Wait a tic. So lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, meaning it must weigh more than styrofoam because styrofoam is only 20% styrofoam and 80% atmosphere. So the lead displaces more atmosphere.Lead is heavier in pure form.
So what about tungsten? Is that 100% tungsten? 150% titanium (you know, because it is denser than lead and one cubic meter of tungsten weighs more than a cubic meter of lead)? And Platinum? Gold? How much atmosphere do you think is in solid ice?
Wait a tic. So lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, meaning it must weigh more than styrofoam because styrofoam is only 20% styrofoam and 80% atmosphere. So the lead displaces more atmosphere.Lead is heavier in pure form.
So what about tungsten? Is that 100% tungsten? 150% titanium (you know, because it is denser than lead and one cubic meter of tungsten weighs more than a cubic meter of lead)? And Platinum? Gold? How much atmosphere do you think is in solid ice?
It's not a case of why lead. Lead was mentioned so it was used as an example against styrofoam to basically show why they weigh differently for the same size appearance.Than what?! Everything?? ??? Is lead the metal by which all others are judged? Why lead?Wait a tic. So lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, meaning it must weigh more than styrofoam because styrofoam is only 20% styrofoam and 80% atmosphere. So the lead displaces more atmosphere.Lead is heavier in pure form.
So what about tungsten? Is that 100% tungsten? 150% titanium (you know, because it is denser than lead and one cubic meter of tungsten weighs more than a cubic meter of lead)? And Platinum? Gold? How much atmosphere do you think is in solid ice?
Yep, so you'll understand what I'm getting at, right?They don't.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Precisely. Lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, so it is heavier than styrofoam which is about 80% air.
It's not a case of why lead. Lead was mentioned so it was used as an example against styrofoam to basically show why they weigh differently for the same size appearance.
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Now I can buy (for a lot of money) a 16" (0.41 m) diameter spherical stainless steel vacuum chamber with a mass of 83 lbs or about 37.6 kg.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Then again, there are some who would contend that pretty much all matter is 99.9999999999999% empty space.Wait a tic. So lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, meaning it must weigh more than styrofoam because styrofoam is only 20% styrofoam and 80% atmosphere. So the lead displaces more atmosphere.
So what about tungsten? Is that 100% tungsten? 150% titanium (you know, because it is denser than lead and one cubic meter of tungsten weighs more than a cubic meter of lead)? And Platinum? Gold? How much atmosphere do you think is in solid ice?
Obviously different metals have different porosities. I rounded to 100% for simplicity. Lead is probably about 70%. Nothing can ever really be 100% anything, because of the second law of thermodynamics.
They're only just starting. It begins with the hard sciences. Things begin to gain steam after physics and chemistry. Biology is surely the next to fall. And geology soon thereafter.
Then again, there are some who would contend that pretty much all of Legba's cranium is 99.9999999999999% empty space.^This
Now Papa is an asshole who just wants to shit on everything.You can also place things inside an anus, including one's head, this is papa's carry all....
Aluminium is only solid to your vision. A block of wood is solid to your vision but you know that it's porous, right?Yep, so you'll understand what I'm getting at, right?They don't.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Precisely. Lead is 100% lead and 0% atmosphere, so it is heavier than styrofoam which is about 80% air.
So, a one meter block of lead and a one meter block of aluminum
displace the same cubic meter.
How much atmosphere is there in solid aluminum?
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere.
So, one cubic meter of lead is heavier than one cubic meter of styrofoam
because they each displace the exact same amount of atmosphere?
Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Now I can buy (for a lot of money):
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?
What are you trying to say?Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
I am waiting for a reply to this:Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Now I can buy (for a lot of money):
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
A 16" (0.41 m) diameter spherical stainless steel vacuum chamber with a mass of 83 lbs or about 37.6 kg.
A sphere of stainless steel 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 281 kg and
A sphere of lead 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 399 kg.
These all have the same volume, are quite impervious to air, yet have quite different masses and hence weights.
Of course the vacuum chamber would weigh about 40 g LESS when evacuated.Please explain how these objects which displace to same volume air have such different masses and weights?Two of the objects are made from stainless steel, so how can they differ in weight.Also where are some references, so we can read more on Sceptimatic's Theory of Gas, Gravity and Everything Else?or is this theory only contained within the awesome mind of Sceptimatic, like Poppy Fisiks in his marshmallows.
In real science, if someone comes up with a new idea it is commonly met at first with scepticism (eg cold fusion, etc), it is not until the the findings are verified by others are they accepted.
Why do the hollow stainless steel spheres (one hollow, one solid) and the lead sphere weigh quite differently, when they must displace exactly the same amount of air?Now I can buy (for a lot of money):What are you trying to say?
A 16" (0.41 m) diameter spherical stainless steel vacuum chamber with a mass of 83 lbs or about 37.6 kg.
A sphere of stainless steel 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 281 kg and
A sphere of lead 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 399 kg.
These all have the same volume, are quite impervious to air, yet have quite different masses and hence weights.
Of course the vacuum chamber would weigh about 40 g LESS when evacuated.Please explain how these objects which displace to same volume air have such different masses and weights?Two of the objects are made from stainless steel, so how can they differ in weight.Also where are some references, so we can read more on Sceptimatic's Theory of Gas, Gravity and Everything Else?or is this theory only contained within the awesome mind of Sceptimatic, like Poppy Fisiks in his marshmallows.
In real science, if someone comes up with a new idea it is commonly met at first with scepticism (eg cold fusion, etc), it is not until the the findings are verified by others are they accepted.
One hollow and one solid should answer your question. One is already full of atmosphere.Why do the hollow stainless steel spheres (one hollow, one solid) and the lead sphere weigh quite differently, when they must displace exactly the same amount of air?Now I can buy (for a lot of money):What are you trying to say?
A 16" (0.41 m) diameter spherical stainless steel vacuum chamber with a mass of 83 lbs or about 37.6 kg.
A sphere of stainless steel 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 281 kg and
A sphere of lead 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 399 kg.
These all have the same volume, are quite impervious to air, yet have quite different masses and hence weights.
Of course the vacuum chamber would weigh about 40 g LESS when evacuated.Please explain how these objects which displace to same volume air have such different masses and weights?Two of the objects are made from stainless steel, so how can they differ in weight.Also where are some references, so we can read more on Sceptimatic's Theory of Gas, Gravity and Everything Else?or is this theory only contained within the awesome mind of Sceptimatic, like Poppy Fisiks in his marshmallows.
In real science, if someone comes up with a new idea it is commonly met at first with scepticism (eg cold fusion, etc), it is not until the the findings are verified by others are they accepted.
Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.How does a rocket engine push off the atmosphere?The same way you would push away water when you're swimming. The only difference is in the friction.
All a rocket does is super heat fuel by mixing it with oxygen under pressure, which creates a massive void in the thrusting burning fuel which expands into the atmosphere, pushing it away. The atmosphere equally responds by squeezing right back, creating the necessary push and squeeze needed to set the rocket in motion. Like a big springboard or a spring that just keeps on boing boing-ing until there's no more pressure applied to it. Or to put it bluntly - until the rocket fuel is spent.
Careful what you come back with, T-bag.
Picture yourself on a swing and really think about what happens. A clue: Think about your legs.Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.How does a rocket engine push off the atmosphere?The same way you would push away water when you're swimming. The only difference is in the friction.
All a rocket does is super heat fuel by mixing it with oxygen under pressure, which creates a massive void in the thrusting burning fuel which expands into the atmosphere, pushing it away. The atmosphere equally responds by squeezing right back, creating the necessary push and squeeze needed to set the rocket in motion. Like a big springboard or a spring that just keeps on boing boing-ing until there's no more pressure applied to it. Or to put it bluntly - until the rocket fuel is spent.
Careful what you come back with, T-bag.
When on a swing, moving my legs and body forward helps me swing forwards. Are you saying that pushing air forwards makes me go forwards?
Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Please explain same size blocks of lead and aluminium having different weights and mass.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Picture yourself on a swing and really think about what happens. A clue: Think about your legs.Does a child on a swing push off the air?A child on a swing will use feet to push the swing and him/her self against the air. Once in motion, it's down to the movement of the body to compress air faster than the swing is moving. This is achieved by arching the back and kicking the legs whilst using the chain/rope of the swing as leverage.How does a rocket engine push off the atmosphere?The same way you would push away water when you're swimming. The only difference is in the friction.
All a rocket does is super heat fuel by mixing it with oxygen under pressure, which creates a massive void in the thrusting burning fuel which expands into the atmosphere, pushing it away. The atmosphere equally responds by squeezing right back, creating the necessary push and squeeze needed to set the rocket in motion. Like a big springboard or a spring that just keeps on boing boing-ing until there's no more pressure applied to it. Or to put it bluntly - until the rocket fuel is spent.
Careful what you come back with, T-bag.
When on a swing, moving my legs and body forward helps me swing forwards. Are you saying that pushing air forwards makes me go forwards?
Picture yourself on a swing and really think about what happens. A clue: Think about your legs.Uhhh...The movement of mass??? Sigh....^^^What....the hell
^What the hell??You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.
I don't know why you feel I am pushing against somethingHe has to fight that, otherwise he admits defeat openly. Instead of quietly getting beat upside the head.
I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
I already have. Pay attention. If you want to play with figures then go and sit in the corner with your abacus.Please explain same size blocks of lead and aluminium having different weights and mass.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Get real, I did say that if I evacuated (meaning removed most of the atmosphere) the hollow one, it would weigh 40 g less.One hollow and one solid should answer your question. One is already full of atmosphere.Why do the hollow stainless steel spheres (one hollow, one solid) and the lead sphere weigh quite differently, when they must displace exactly the same amount of air?Now I can buy (for a lot of money):What are you trying to say?
A 16" (0.41 m) diameter spherical stainless steel vacuum chamber with a mass of 83 lbs or about 37.6 kg.
A sphere of stainless steel 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 281 kg and
A sphere of lead 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 399 kg.
These all have the same volume, are quite impervious to air, yet have quite different masses and hence weights.
Of course the vacuum chamber would weigh about 40 g LESS when evacuated.Please explain how these objects which displace to same volume air have such different masses and weights?Two of the objects are made from stainless steel, so how can they differ in weight.Also where are some references, so we can read more on Sceptimatic's Theory of Gas, Gravity and Everything Else?or is this theory only contained within the awesome mind of Sceptimatic, like Poppy Fisiks in his marshmallows.
In real science, if someone comes up with a new idea it is commonly met at first with scepticism (eg cold fusion, etc), it is not until the the findings are verified by others are they accepted.
No atmosphere and no movement.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Are you taking the piss or what? "Air" apparently means something entirely different to you than it does to everyone else. What happens when there is no air?
No atmosphere and no movement.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Are you taking the piss or what? "Air" apparently means something entirely different to you than it does to everyone else. What happens when there is no air?
You can't evacuate it. It still has air in it and will always have air in it unless it collapses.Get real, I did say that if I evacuated (meaning removed most of the atmosphere) the hollow one, it would weigh 40 g less.One hollow and one solid should answer your question. One is already full of atmosphere.Why do the hollow stainless steel spheres (one hollow, one solid) and the lead sphere weigh quite differently, when they must displace exactly the same amount of air?Now I can buy (for a lot of money):What are you trying to say?
A 16" (0.41 m) diameter spherical stainless steel vacuum chamber with a mass of 83 lbs or about 37.6 kg.
A sphere of stainless steel 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 281 kg and
A sphere of lead 0.41 m in diameter, which has a mass of about 399 kg.
These all have the same volume, are quite impervious to air, yet have quite different masses and hence weights.
Of course the vacuum chamber would weigh about 40 g LESS when evacuated.Please explain how these objects which displace to same volume air have such different masses and weights?Two of the objects are made from stainless steel, so how can they differ in weight.Also where are some references, so we can read more on Sceptimatic's Theory of Gas, Gravity and Everything Else?or is this theory only contained within the awesome mind of Sceptimatic, like Poppy Fisiks in his marshmallows.
In real science, if someone comes up with a new idea it is commonly met at first with scepticism (eg cold fusion, etc), it is not until the the findings are verified by others are they accepted.
My theory is not wrong and there have been no experiments showing anything like what I'm talking about.No atmosphere and no movement.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Are you taking the piss or what? "Air" apparently means something entirely different to you than it does to everyone else. What happens when there is no air?
So your theory is wrong, as has been demonstrated by countless easy to replicate experiments.
Scepti please read
"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" it's dated but a good read, I've given up on Papa.
Then tell us again how a swing works by pushing on air, including the relevant equations of course.
Even Papa wasn't that dumb to make such an easily refuted statement.
Scepti please readYou get no equations from me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything. You want to live on them then go ahead. Do it with like-minded individuals, not with me.
"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" it's dated but a good read, I've given up on Papa.
Then tell us again how a swing works by pushing on air, including the relevant equations of course.
Even Papa wasn't that dumb to make such an easily refuted statement.
Scepti please readYou get no equations from me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything.
"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" it's dated but a good read, I've given up on Papa.
Then tell us again how a swing works by pushing on air, including the relevant equations of course.
Even Papa wasn't that dumb to make such an easily refuted statement.
Scepti please readYou get no equations from me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything. You want to live on them then go ahead. Do it with like-minded individuals, not with me.
"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" it's dated but a good read, I've given up on Papa.
Then tell us again how a swing works by pushing on air, including the relevant equations of course.
Even Papa wasn't that dumb to make such an easily refuted statement.
No wonder you people are easily duped into accepting bullshit.
My theory is not wrong and there have been no experiments showing anything like what I'm talking about.No atmosphere and no movement.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
Are you taking the piss or what? "Air" apparently means something entirely different to you than it does to everyone else. What happens when there is no air?
So your theory is wrong, as has been demonstrated by countless easy to replicate experiments.
My theory is not wrong and there have been no experiments showing anything like what I'm talking about.
It's slightly sad. No; in fact it's fairly scary that people like you cannot grasp logical common sense, even after being explained to.Scepti please readYou get no equations from me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything. You want to live on them then go ahead. Do it with like-minded individuals, not with me.
"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" it's dated but a good read, I've given up on Papa.
Then tell us again how a swing works by pushing on air, including the relevant equations of course.
Even Papa wasn't that dumb to make such an easily refuted statement.
No wonder you people are easily duped into accepting bullshit.
You just proven everything I need to know about you. I actually believe you are a level below Legba , and I quite frankly did not know that was possible.
I mean listen to yourself...really..
Though I like your world in one aspect. Since it's air we are pushing off of in a swing, then by that math we can all fly!! Just by flapping our arms!! Yet at that point those damn birds are going to be flying near Mach.
Hey disputeone.....wanna toss up for that Sig, because you really don't get any better than that. I can trade you my Legba chimney climb looking for satalites ha ha.
It's slightly sad. No; in fact it's fairly scary that people like you cannot grasp logical common sense, even after being explained to.Scepti please readYou get no equations from me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything. You want to live on them then go ahead. Do it with like-minded individuals, not with me.
"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" it's dated but a good read, I've given up on Papa.
Then tell us again how a swing works by pushing on air, including the relevant equations of course.
Even Papa wasn't that dumb to make such an easily refuted statement.
No wonder you people are easily duped into accepting bullshit.
You just proven everything I need to know about you. I actually believe you are a level below Legba , and I quite frankly did not know that was possible.
I mean listen to yourself...really..
Though I like your world in one aspect. Since it's air we are pushing off of in a swing, then by that math we can all fly!! Just by flapping our arms!! Yet at that point those damn birds are going to be flying near Mach.
Hey disputeone.....wanna toss up for that Sig, because you really don't get any better than that. I can trade you my Legba chimney climb looking for satalites ha ha.
Your reliance of equations that add nothing and prove nothing in the context of logic, is naive and silly.
You carry on being naive and you'll learn nothing.
What you know now, is a lot of misdirection, either deliberate or, in some cases, simply borne from naivety.
Carry on.
Please repeat. What is your problem with numbers?I already have. Pay attention. If you want to play with figures then go and sit in the corner with your abacus.Please explain same size blocks of lead and aluminium having different weights and mass.I'll take this as you trying to play the wind up merchant. Don't bother me with your drivel.Heavier objects are only heavier to us solely because they displace more atmosphere. The more atmosphere that is pushed into by whatever object, the more that object will weigh on a man made scale.Yep, you move away by displacing air. The reason you can't grasp that is because you're not thinking on the right lines.
So when you are on a skateboard and push against the wall you move away by displacing air ? :D
Here's a tip. Arms bent and energy applied to the wall, requires a displacement of air, just for that to happen. Once that has happened, then all of the mass has been pushed against the atmosphere, compressing it and causing it to come back around the mass to create equal and opposite reaction to action.you know you can push against a mass whether it is fixed or not, you could push against a medicine ball when you throw it.Yep but the only way you can push against a medicine ball and receive a reactionary force back from it, is either when that medicine ball is under atmospheric clamping on the ground which creates a friction on that ground as well as against atmosphere, or your own energy holds that mass of medicine ball, up. You have displaced the amount of atmosphere that the medicine ball repels from its mass and that's the pressure of atmosphere bearing down onto your ball that you have to resist with your energy.
By throwing this medicine ball horizontally, you will have to move it from one filled atmospheric place to another, then another and another, depending on how much energy you put into the throw. All that atmosphere reacts against your ball until you release it - or to put it simpler - when your energy of push does not count anymore.
So from what you said, I assume that Newton's third law does not work underwater, and that heavier objects displace more atmosphere regardless of their shape. Ok.
It's about the density of the object against the atmosphere. Basically repelling it rather than absorbing it.
Stop making stuff up. How does a hollow metal box displace less air than one that isn't hollow? Do you have any evidence for what you're saying? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't)
It's slightly sad. No; in fact it's fairly scary that people like you cannot grasp logical common sense, even after being explained to.Just possibly the reason "that people like" us "cannot grasp logical common sense", is that to us it does make the slightest bit sense, logical, common or otherwise! Sorry about that.
Your reliance of equations that add nothing and prove nothing in the context of logic, is naive and silly.
You carry on being naive and you'll learn nothing.
What you know now, is a lot of misdirection, either deliberate or, in some cases, simply borne from naivety.
Carry on.
Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?
It's slightly sad. No; in fact it's fairly scary that people like you cannot grasp logical common sense, even after being explained to.
Your reliance of equations that add nothing and prove nothing in the context of logic, is naive and silly.
You carry on being naive and you'll learn nothing.
What you know now, is a lot of misdirection, either deliberate or, in some cases, simply borne from naivety.
Carry on.
How is any of what you say "common sense"? You just come up with ridiculous explanations that require that we throw experimental observations out of the window, that's extremely backwards.You aren't throwing experimental observations out of the window. What you go with has not been experimentally observed, physically. What you observe is what you read in mainstream books and what you hear by those that parrot what the parrots parrot. And so on.
Examples please.How is any of what you say "common sense"? You just come up with ridiculous explanations that require that we throw experimental observations out of the window, that's extremely backwards.You aren't throwing experimental observations out of the window. What you go with has not been experimentally observed, physically. What you observe is what you read in mainstream books and what you hear by those that parrot what the parrots parrot. And so on.
Actually, that sort of thing is confirmed experimentally all the time in wind tunnels.How is any of what you say "common sense"? You just come up with ridiculous explanations that require that we throw experimental observations out of the window, that's extremely backwards.You aren't throwing experimental observations out of the window. What you go with has not been experimentally observed, physically. What you observe is what you read in mainstream books and what you hear by those that parrot what the parrots parrot. And so on.
Newton's Third Law
Number of objects in the examples: TWO.
Number of objects a rocket is: ONE.
A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?
I place the block on a scale it's weight is X.
After shaping place it on a scale it's weight is still is x.
The atmospheric area has not changed.
That not quite what it is, both steel ships and balloons depend on this principle in order to work, is that not enough of a clue for you?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?
I place the block on a scale it's weight is X.
After shaping place it on a scale it's weight is still is x.
The atmospheric area has not changed.
A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
Lol goobledegook is a synonym for rediculous nonsense lol.The fact that you believe you can fly because of what I said, means you don't understand what's being said, or are simply making sure truth is suppressed.
Why do you even bother asking someone questions who believe that you swing a swing with your legs by air resistance?
I hope he is right, if he is tonight I am going to fly like an eagle :D
You're not explaining properly. Say what you mean to say.That not quite what it is, both steel ships and balloons depend on this principle in order to work, is that not enough of a clue for you?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?
I place the block on a scale it's weight is X.
After shaping place it on a scale it's weight is still is x.
The atmospheric area has not changed.
Were you trying to say something?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.
What on earth does that bit of Gobbledegook mean?
By the way does anyone else share your ideas on "nu fisix"? Or are you the only one with these earth shattering hypotheses?
If you look up the meaning of "Gobbledegook" you might get the message.Were you trying to say something?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.
What on earth does that bit of Gobbledegook mean?
By the way does anyone else share your ideas on "nu fisix"? Or are you the only one with these earth shattering hypotheses?
What exactly are you trying to get across?If you look up the meaning of "Gobbledegook" you might get the message.Were you trying to say something?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.
What on earth does that bit of Gobbledegook mean?
By the way does anyone else share your ideas on "nu fisix"? Or are you the only one with these earth shattering hypotheses?
That you are spouting absolute rubbish with no relation to facts.What exactly are you trying to get across?If you look up the meaning of "Gobbledegook" you might get the message.Were you trying to say something?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.
What on earth does that bit of Gobbledegook mean?
By the way does anyone else share your ideas on "nu fisix"? Or are you the only one with these earth shattering hypotheses?
That you are spouting absolute rubbish with no relation to facts.You do not know this. Your indoctrination has led you to believe it.
If you on your own expect to change the existing laws of physics in so many areas (gravitation, theory of gases, etc) you need to do a lot more than argue on a site like this.I'm not naive enough to believe I can change anything. What I say on this site is for anyone to view and take from it what they want to, or not. Either way it does not affect me.
The existing laws of physics have been built up over thousands of years to explain observations. Numerous hypotheses have been proposed (many by well respected "scientists" including Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and many others) and then discarded when it was found that they did not explain observations.You only know what you've been coaxed into believing.
If you are not prepared for others to examine and test you "hypotheses" then you are wasting everyone's time.We cannot or are not allowed to test the crap that is spewed out by mainstream so called scientists that theorise on anything and everything. It's simply truth and no arguing, is basically how they operate.
Looking around the interwebs i found out that sceptimatic's explanation of movement is not his nor new.To move anything against atmospheric resistance, it requires energy. Whether that's pulling a string on a bow or by swinging a pendulum, it still has to displace atmosphere.
Apparently, it was proposed during the renaissance. To whoever proposed it, when you shoot an arrow, it displaces the air in front of it towards its back, and said air tries to regain its position, pushing the arrow in turn. The arrow keeps on flying until it runs out of power and falls almost vertically.
The problem is air doesn't work that way. When you move forward the higher pressure is in front of you, not behind you. When a pendulum swings the air slows it down, it's not what makes the pendulum move.
How is any of what you say "common sense"? You just come up with ridiculous explanations that require that we throw experimental observations out of the window, that's extremely backwards.You aren't throwing experimental observations out of the window. What you go with has not been experimentally observed, physically. What you observe is what you read in mainstream books and what you hear by those that parrot what the parrots parrot. And so on.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Number of objects in the examples: TWO.
Number of objects a rocket is: ONE.
Number of sock-puppets trying to prevent you from comprehending this simple Fact: INFINITE.
Lol goobledegook is a synonym for rediculous nonsense lol.The fact that you believe you can fly because of what I said, means you don't understand what's being said, or are simply making sure truth is suppressed.
Why do you even bother asking someone questions who believe that you swing a swing with your legs by air resistance?
I hope he is right, if he is tonight I am going to fly like an eagle :D
It doesn't matter which.
I'll try and help you out a little bit - assuming you are simply clueless or naive.
The swing seat enables the person to keep stay in the air and keep moving by kicking into the atmosphere. The rest of the body plays aerodynamics.
Take a look at a person on a swing and see what's really happening.
A bird uses its wings to push down on atmosphere to create lift, but as soon as the energy is spent in creating that lift, the wings twist to vertical to slice through the air to create a path of least resistance.
The person on the swing kicks out their legs to scoop atmosphere then straightens them out to create a path of less resistance. This is what keeps the momentum.
How you think it can be done without the aid of atmosphere is the most baffling thing, ever. The only way this can be is for reasons I explained earlier.
My guess is that you're a star trek lover or something like that. This would explain why you buy into the nonsense that the sci-fi writers spew out.
Maybe you are simply dis-info. Who knows?
Rich man at a low ebb on a flat Earth forum defending anything mainstream. Hmmm. It's baffling. ;D
I went for a swim in the air this morning. More people should try it. Just push off the atmosphere while being aerodynamic.
I went for a swim in the air this morning. More people should try it. Just push off the atmosphere while being aerodynamic.Me too. I used a swing to hold me up and then just kicked at the air whilst changing body stance to keep swinging.
Must be some really thick air where you live... If your assumptions were true, you would indeed be able to kick yourself up without the use of a swing, i.e. fly.One day when you pay attention instead of sniffing people's arses who you follow, then you might - I say, might, learn something.
Please remind us how many transistors are in a typical home computer and how a nuclear power station works.Must be some really thick air where you live... If your assumptions were true, you would indeed be able to kick yourself up without the use of a swing, i.e. fly.One day when you pay attention instead of sniffing people's arses who you follow, then you might - I say, might, learn something.
At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
A classic example of how to post when you have nothing.Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
You're not explaining properly. Say what you mean to say.That not quite what it is, both steel ships and balloons depend on this principle in order to work, is that not enough of a clue for you?A flat piece of metal is easily unbalanced by the water. A turned up edge of the same metal allows atmospheric pressure to push down on it against its resistance and thus, stabilizing it.Once you turn up the edges you then create a massive atmospheric area. Think about it.Have a think about it.
You beat me to it; All though I was going to use a cubic inch of granite and a cubic inch of wood, if it is displacement of the air that creates weight, what happens when you drop them in the water? ???
oops this is a derail.
Let's go back to the styrofoam and lead as an instance.
Equal sized blocks placed in water; what happens?
The lead block sinks and the styrofoam floats high on the top. Why?
The Lead block creates a massive resistance against the atmospheric pressure but cannot use the water as a leverage to resist it because the water isn't dense enough to act as a leverage and so the Lead, sinks.
The styrofoam is mostly air and is already part of the atmosphere, so very little of it has to use the water as a leverage to resists the pressure upon it, so it floats high in the water.
You can take that same block of lead pounded it out roll it out flat very thin, turn the edges up place it gently Into the water and it will float. What does the shape of an object have to do with this weight?
I place the block on a scale it's weight is X.
After shaping place it on a scale it's weight is still is x.
The atmospheric area has not changed.
Sea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
There is a simple explanation that ships made out of steel can float, and why balloons float, it is the same principle that allows this. And I was wondering if you know what that principle is?
'Nothing'?No trouble, we all learnt that 1 + 1 = 2 even before school. Did you miss out.
You clowns really do have difficulty with this counting lark...Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg.Sea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Yep, that's what I'm saying.Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Are you saying something like a cube made of cork weighing 1 kg will displace the same amount of a fluid as a 1 kg cube of lead?
Prove it. A cubic meter of lead is a different mass/weight to a cubic meter of copper.Yep, that's what I'm saying.Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Are you saying something like a cube made of cork weighing 1 kg will displace the same amount of a fluid as a 1 kg cube of lead?
Correct. I don't deny that.Prove it. A cubic meter of lead is a different mass/weight to a cubic meter of copper.Yep, that's what I'm saying.Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Are you saying something like a cube made of cork weighing 1 kg will displace the same amount of a fluid as a 1 kg cube of lead?
Yet the cube of cork, or copper, is a different size to a cube of lead of the same weight.Correct. I don't deny that.Prove it. A cubic meter of lead is a different mass/weight to a cubic meter of copper.Yep, that's what I'm saying.Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Are you saying something like a cube made of cork weighing 1 kg will displace the same amount of a fluid as a 1 kg cube of lead?
Yeah ok dude. Wink wink.Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Thank you, shills!!! Keep up the good work! Keep asking more and more questions!!You're welcome.
The more shillery, the more I learn the truth!!
SceptiMatic,
Again, a sincere thank you for your perseverence in clearly explaining denpressure.
Exactly, because some are more porous than others so will naturally take up more area than others but will still reads the same weight due to atmospheric pressure they are up against or displacing.Yet the cube of cork, or copper, is a different size to a cube of lead of the same weight.Correct. I don't deny that.Prove it. A cubic meter of lead is a different mass/weight to a cubic meter of copper.Yep, that's what I'm saying.Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Are you saying something like a cube made of cork weighing 1 kg will displace the same amount of a fluid as a 1 kg cube of lead?
Not really. A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Does this sort of give you a clue about the displacement of atmosphere?Since iron has a density of about 7900 kg/m3, a 1 m3 block would weigh about 7900 kg. Which is a kick in the arse from being 8 tonnesSea level atmosphere is 14.7 psi.How can 1 cubic meter of iron displace nearly 8 tonnes of air?At sea level, air has a density of about 1.2 kg/m3.Nothing you said goes against what I said.
Water has a density of 1,000 kg/m3.
Iron has a density of almost 7900 kg/m3.
Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Think about that for a bit when you talk about displacement or try to claim that a rocket has to push off the atmosphere in order to move.
How much would your iron block weigh on a scale?
Just for the sake of clairty, please describe the differences between mass, density, weight and displacement.
Mass and density can be regarded as the same thing really. It just comes down to how one person wants toi view one thing. the science world would have us all in a mix because it suits them.Not really. Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.
Weight is merely a man made scale of measurement of mass/density of whatever object displaces atmospheric pressure.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).
Just like your near 8 tonne block diplaces near 8 tonnes of atmosphere. This is why your near 8 tonne block measures near 8 tonne of weight on a man made measuring scale plate.
Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?
Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.
Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.
Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
I think not. Explain last statement problem.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
What does a block of lead covered with a thin layer of copper show?I think not. Explain last statement problem.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
The only clown here is the one that keeps pasting newtons 3rd law. Isn't it past your bedtime little buddy?
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle?Because the bottle is not porous enough to allow air nor liquid to pass through it, just inside of it.
If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it?It would mix due to the glass being in an expanded state upon heating.
WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE?They can be depending on the severity of a high verses low pressure differential.
How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)?Name me something that can work in a vacuum that you can absolutely verify.
Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air?Because the swing takes your entire weight. All your flailing body has to do from that point is displace enough air to get you swinging.
Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?Pushing on anything displaces air all the time, no matter what. It's why we are alive and it's why anything and everything moves. High V low pressure differences.
If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
So you're saying that water is more porous than iron? Does that even make sense? ???Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?
Well, at least we agree on something.Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.
Oh? Why not? Are you saying that an object will weigh the same sitting on a table as it does in a rapidly spinning centrifuge?Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.
BTW, displacement is measured in the weight of the fluid displaced, not the weight of the object itself. If the displaced fluid weighs more than the object, then the object floats. If the displaced fluid weighs less than the object, then the object sinks. This is known a buoyancy and should not be confused with weight.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
We already had this argument long ago. If air freely passes through less dense objects, then vacuum packing and other anaerobic conditions can't exist.Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
So you're saying that water is more porous than iron? Does that even make sense? ???You forgot that you are using water against iron, meaning liquid against solid. Make them both solid and things change.
Are you saying that an object will weigh the same sitting on a table as it does in a rapidly spinning centrifuge?How would you weigh something in a rapidly spinning centrifuge?
BTW, displacement is measured in the weight of the fluid displaced, not the weight of the object itself.By pressure of atmosphere upon the object that is resisting that atmospheric pressure.
If the displaced fluid weighs more than the object, then the object floats.So why are you using weight to tell me that I shouldn't be confusing weight?
If the displaced fluid weighs less than the object, then the object sinks.
This is known a buoyancy and should not be confused with weight.
That is unless you want to say that Archimedes is wrong too.
Who said air passes freely through less dense objects?We already had this argument long ago. If air freely passes through less dense objects, then vacuum packing and other anaerobic conditions can't exist.Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
Please prove that air passes through copper. At what rate?Who said air passes freely through less dense objects?We already had this argument long ago. If air freely passes through less dense objects, then vacuum packing and other anaerobic conditions can't exist.Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
I said it passes more freely through POROUS objects.
You can't say you weren't warned.Please prove that air passes through copper. At what rate?Who said air passes freely through less dense objects?We already had this argument long ago. If air freely passes through less dense objects, then vacuum packing and other anaerobic conditions can't exist.Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
I said it passes more freely through POROUS objects.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle?Because the bottle is not porous enough to allow air nor liquid to pass through it, just inside of it.If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it?It would mix due to the glass being in an expanded state upon heating.WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE?They can be depending on the severity of a high verses low pressure differential.How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)?Name me something that can work in a vacuum that you can absolutely verify.
Also, things can work in lower pressure environments because it's still atmosphere.Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air?Because the swing takes your entire weight. All your flailing body has to do from that point is displace enough air to get you swinging.
Flying requires you to use your flailing body in such extremity to gain flight that you would literally have to buzz your arms at such a rate they would literally wear out in seconds, assuming you could magically do it, which we all know we cannot.Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?Pushing on anything displaces air all the time, no matter what. It's why we are alive and it's why anything and everything moves. High V low pressure differences.
If you think I'm gonna repeat stuff to you again, you are sadly mistaken.No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle?Because the bottle is not porous enough to allow air nor liquid to pass through it, just inside of it.If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it?It would mix due to the glass being in an expanded state upon heating.WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE?They can be depending on the severity of a high verses low pressure differential.How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)?Name me something that can work in a vacuum that you can absolutely verify.
Also, things can work in lower pressure environments because it's still atmosphere.Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air?Because the swing takes your entire weight. All your flailing body has to do from that point is displace enough air to get you swinging.
Flying requires you to use your flailing body in such extremity to gain flight that you would literally have to buzz your arms at such a rate they would literally wear out in seconds, assuming you could magically do it, which we all know we cannot.Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?Pushing on anything displaces air all the time, no matter what. It's why we are alive and it's why anything and everything moves. High V low pressure differences.
Now you're trapped. If the bottle is porous enough to let air get in the interior of it, then what if I cut the glass in half? Surely now the air can get through it!
"It would mix due to the glass being in an expanded state upon heating."
WTF does that even mean? Seriously, you have to explain it.
"They can be depending on the severity of a high verses low pressure differential."
First of all, that doesn't make sense. Second, if you haven't yet realized it, wind often moves faster than your legs on a swing. If moving your legs on a swing is enough to push yourself, wind should be able to throw you around as if you weren't anything at all.
"Name me something that can work in a vacuum that you can absolutely verify."
What do you mean by "can work"? I know things can fall for a start, and that things weigh the same.
"Also, things can work in lower pressure environments because it's still atmosphere."
Yes, but they would work much different. Their mass for a start would be much lower, as they would displace much less air.
"Because the swing takes your entire weight. All your flailing body has to do from that point is displace enough air to get you swinging.
Flying requires you to use your flailing body in such extremity to gain flight that you would literally have to buzz your arms at such a rate they would literally wear out in seconds, assuming you could magically do it, which we all know we cannot."
I can show you that the force required to get you from being stationary to swinging is so much that you'd be able to AT LEAST feel less heavy as you swing your arms around, but I'm not going to do that. Instead, what I will do is tell you this: if I am sitting on a cart or on ice skates or something similar (that would "take my weight"), I should be able to propel myself by "swimming" through the air, and very fast.
"Pushing on anything displaces air all the time, no matter what. It's why we are alive and it's why anything and everything moves. High V low pressure differences."
HOW does it displace air?
Yes, so like I said, vacuum sealing and other aneroid conditions couldn't exist. But they do.Who said air passes freely through less dense objects?We already had this argument long ago. If air freely passes through less dense objects, then vacuum packing and other anaerobic conditions can't exist.Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
I said it passes more freely through POROUS objects.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
Not gonna let any of you forget about this, cos it's the absolute crux of your mad bullshit:Object B is the exhaust.Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
To think you've spent ages being explained to and all you want to do is pretend you understand it all and yet you understand nothing. What a complete waste.Yes, so like I said, vacuum sealing and other aneroid conditions couldn't exist. But they do.Who said air passes freely through less dense objects?We already had this argument long ago. If air freely passes through less dense objects, then vacuum packing and other anaerobic conditions can't exist.Why wouldn't they exist?If what he said was true, anaerobic conditions wouldn't exist. Yet so many industries use them.You're making this really difficult for yourself.A cubic meter of lead and copper both displace the same amount of water. Simarly a 1cu m. block of lead covered with a thin layerof copper.Porousity.
A 1 m3 block of water only weighs 1 tonne but displaces the same amount of atmosphere. How can 14.7 psi of atmosphere make same size blocks of iron and water have such different weights?Mass is a measure of how much stuff there is. Density is how much stuff per unit of volume. 1 kg of air and 1 kg of lead have the same mass, but vastly different densities.Yep.Actually, weight is how much force a given mass exerts at a given acceleration (usually due to gravitation).Nope.Displacement, on the other hand, is a measure of how much volume an object takes up when immersed in a fluid. It's handy for figuring out the density of oddly shaped and/or porous objects.Keep this in mind and you have an excellent chance of understanding why gravity is bullshit and why atmospheric pressure is the key to everything.
No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle? If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it? WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE? How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)? Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air? Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?
I said it passes more freely through POROUS objects.
Denpessure was destroyed long ago. Did you forget "den" stood for density?
Not gonna let any of you forget about this, cos it's the absolute crux of your mad bullshit:Object B is the exhaust.Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
Huh? That makes even less sense.So you're saying that water is more porous than iron? Does that even make sense? ???You forgot that you are using water against iron, meaning liquid against solid. Make them both solid and things change.
Perhaps with something like this:Are you saying that an object will weigh the same sitting on a table as it does in a rapidly spinning centrifuge?How would you weigh something in a rapidly spinning centrifuge?
Huh?BTW, displacement is measured in the weight of the fluid displaced, not the weight of the object itself.By pressure of atmosphere upon the object that is resisting that atmospheric pressure.
Weight refers to the object. Displacement refers to the fluid in which the object is submerged.If the displaced fluid weighs more than the object, then the object floats.So why are you using weight to tell me that I shouldn't be confusing weight?
If the displaced fluid weighs less than the object, then the object sinks.
This is known a buoyancy and should not be confused with weight.
That is unless you want to say that Archimedes is wrong too.
To think you've spent ages being explained to and all you want to do is pretend you understand it all and yet you understand nothing. What a complete waste.What you mean to say is that I was around when you invented denpressure and I remeber all the things you made up. You are forgetful.
There is a simple explanation that ships made out of steel can float, and why balloons float, it is the same principle that allows this. And I was wondering if you know what that principle is?
Fluid dynamics . . . what did I win?
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
It's you people that don't get it. Latched on to gravity like limpets when it's pretty clear what the reality is. You people obviously aren't geared to go with that and maybe never will.There is a simple explanation that ships made out of steel can float, and why balloons float, it is the same principle that allows this. And I was wondering if you know what that principle is?
Fluid dynamics . . . what did I win?
You win a brass brownie button.
With the following clarification: It is the displacement of weight of the fluid that the object is in, that allows it to float.
Sceptimatic just does not get it, it requires gravity.
It's you that cannot explain your thoughts, you get so far and then get abusive. Explain how copper is pourous.It's you people that don't get it. Latched on to gravity like limpets when it's pretty clear what the reality is. You people obviously aren't geared to go with that and maybe never will.There is a simple explanation that ships made out of steel can float, and why balloons float, it is the same principle that allows this. And I was wondering if you know what that principle is?
Fluid dynamics . . . what did I win?
You win a brass brownie button.
With the following clarification: It is the displacement of weight of the fluid that the object is in, that allows it to float.
Sceptimatic just does not get it, it requires gravity.
Pressure upon any dense object is why everything happens inside this cell of Earth. It's what allows man to measure weight on a man made scale, due to push and resistance of atmosphere to object.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
Yet you can respond intelligently to your questions.It's you people that don't get it. Latched on to gravity like limpets when it's pretty clear what the reality is. You people obviously aren't geared to go with that and maybe never will.There is a simple explanation that ships made out of steel can float, and why balloons float, it is the same principle that allows this. And I was wondering if you know what that principle is?
Fluid dynamics . . . what did I win?
You win a brass brownie button.
With the following clarification: It is the displacement of weight of the fluid that the object is in, that allows it to float.
Sceptimatic just does not get it, it requires gravity.
Pressure upon any dense object is why everything happens inside this cell of Earth. It's what allows man to measure weight on a man made scale, due to push and resistance of atmosphere to object.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
What does a push look like? Can you show me a picture of a push?What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
Give it up.
What does a push look like? Can you show me a picture of a push?
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Why not just describe it in your own words instead of using a tl;dr copypasta that you've been shitspamming for weeks?What does a push look like? Can you show me a picture of a push?
Said the retard v2.0.
Read again, sad old man & his faithful apprentice gimp:
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Why not just drop your psychotic disinfo-act & admit I've answered you already?How about an answer that makes sense?
Cos you ain't getting another.I didn't really think so.
Here you go; simple scientific truth:Would you please point out where N3 says that one object can't eject, and therefore force pair with, another object?
Why not just drop your psychotic disinfo-act & admit I've answered you already?
Cos you ain't getting another.
Here you go; simple scientific truth:
<< removed a few quote levels >>
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Examples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
"hoist with his own petard," is an idiom that means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap", implying that one could be lifted (blown) upward by one's own bomb, or in other words, be foiled by one's own plan.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
You still leave out the important bit!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
If you think I'm gonna repeat stuff to you again, you are sadly mistaken.No, YOU are making this really difficult for yourself. If everything is so porous, why can I not blow through a bottle?Because the bottle is not porous enough to allow air nor liquid to pass through it, just inside of it.If I put a solid piece of glass in a chamber filled with a colored gas, would it then take the color of the gas because of absorbing it?It would mix due to the glass being in an expanded state upon heating.WHY AREN'T GUSTS OF WIND COMPLETELY DESTRUCTIVE?They can be depending on the severity of a high verses low pressure differential.How do things work in a vacuum/much lower air pressure (don't tell me you can't do that, you obviously can)?Name me something that can work in a vacuum that you can absolutely verify.
Also, things can work in lower pressure environments because it's still atmosphere.Why can I not fly the same way I can swing, by swimming through the air?Because the swing takes your entire weight. All your flailing body has to do from that point is displace enough air to get you swinging.
Flying requires you to use your flailing body in such extremity to gain flight that you would literally have to buzz your arms at such a rate they would literally wear out in seconds, assuming you could magically do it, which we all know we cannot.Are you even remotely serious when you say that interactions between bodies such as pushing on a wall happen because somehow air is displaced?Pushing on anything displaces air all the time, no matter what. It's why we are alive and it's why anything and everything moves. High V low pressure differences.
Now you're trapped. If the bottle is porous enough to let air get in the interior of it, then what if I cut the glass in half? Surely now the air can get through it!
"It would mix due to the glass being in an expanded state upon heating."
WTF does that even mean? Seriously, you have to explain it.
"They can be depending on the severity of a high verses low pressure differential."
First of all, that doesn't make sense. Second, if you haven't yet realized it, wind often moves faster than your legs on a swing. If moving your legs on a swing is enough to push yourself, wind should be able to throw you around as if you weren't anything at all.
"Name me something that can work in a vacuum that you can absolutely verify."
What do you mean by "can work"? I know things can fall for a start, and that things weigh the same.
"Also, things can work in lower pressure environments because it's still atmosphere."
Yes, but they would work much different. Their mass for a start would be much lower, as they would displace much less air.
"Because the swing takes your entire weight. All your flailing body has to do from that point is displace enough air to get you swinging.
Flying requires you to use your flailing body in such extremity to gain flight that you would literally have to buzz your arms at such a rate they would literally wear out in seconds, assuming you could magically do it, which we all know we cannot."
I can show you that the force required to get you from being stationary to swinging is so much that you'd be able to AT LEAST feel less heavy as you swing your arms around, but I'm not going to do that. Instead, what I will do is tell you this: if I am sitting on a cart or on ice skates or something similar (that would "take my weight"), I should be able to propel myself by "swimming" through the air, and very fast.
"Pushing on anything displaces air all the time, no matter what. It's why we are alive and it's why anything and everything moves. High V low pressure differences."
HOW does it displace air?
You can't grasp anything unless it's fed to you by your so called scientific idols.
What a waste of time you are.
Not gonna let any of you forget about this, cos it's the absolute crux of your mad bullshit:Object B is the exhaust.Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
All your mad bullshit summed up in one mad bullshit sentence...
Oh, sorry, according to your mad bullshit math it was TWO mad bullshit sentences, wasn't it?
You mad bullshitter.
Incorrect.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
I never said they didn't, Inquisi-bot.Why do you use personal abuse in your replies?
They just don't work in the way you retards claim they work.
This should help explain it:What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Why do you retards waste my time with complete bullshit in your replies?Because you can't count!
Back to this:What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Examples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that a rocket (singular noun) is ONE object?How many objects is a car (singular noun)?
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Oh look markjo; there's a car in one of these examples & guess what?Then why are there so many auto PARTS stores?
That's right - it counts as ONE object!
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Some forces result from contact interactions (normal, frictional, tensional, and applied forces are examples of contact forces) and other forces are the result of action-at-a-distance interactions (gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces).
According to Newton, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other. When you sit in your chair, your body exerts a downward force on the chair and the chair exerts an upward force on your body.
There are two forces resulting from this interaction - a force on the chair and a force on your body. These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Object B is the exhaust.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Oh look markjo; there's a car in one of these examples & guess what?But you still haven't explained why there are so many auto PARTS stores if a car is only one object.
That's right - it counts as ONE object!
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Is a gun cartridge one object or two?
Papa thinks he's winning because his stupid responses keep people replying and 'wasting time'.
But actually, I've learned a lot from this thread. So many good examples of how forces interact, they will be very useful analogies for the future :) I can imagine other people will feel the same way.
The level of explanation in this thread is pretty amazing, thanks to everyone who posted something useful :)
Papa, please keep sacrificing your time trolling on these forums so that we can all improve how we explain simple science!
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Anyhoo; enough psychological games - back to indisputable scientific truth:
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
A push, eh?What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
Hi markjo!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
A push, eh?
Is that anything like a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket?
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
??? So you're saying that Newton's second law applies to the rocket exhaust, but his third law doesn't?A push, eh?
Is that anything like a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket?
Yeah, Newton had a Second Law too...
This is kinda implied by the numbering of his Third Law.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Papa why do you never quote a bit more from the "Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion" where you "borrowed" your "copy and paste" from?
Most people acknowledge where a major quotation came from, but not Papa, because then we might see that he told only half the story!
Here's a bit of what you quoted:QuoteExamples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.Oops, sorry that looks like what you wrote. Most people would have acknowledged the source!
And then the bit you deceptively omitted:Quote2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See AnswerQuoteCheck your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.So we have 2 objects! The rocket AND the exhaust gases! 1 + 1 = 2!
Anything to say about this little omission?
Have a nice day!
Yours sincerely "RABinOZ".
You poor useless bastard...Please point out where that copypasta (or any credible source) specifically says that one object cannot carry a second object to use as a reaction mass.
Learn to fucking read, energy-vampire shill-spaz:
*** snip shitspam copypasta ***
No escaping Truth, shills.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that a rocket (singular noun) is ONE object?
Oh, & STFU Geoff.
Why not just drop your psychotic disinfo-act & admit I've answered you already?
Cos you ain't getting another.
Here you go; simple scientific truth:What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
A person on ice skates pushes a wall. Let's take that person and the wall, and call both of them something. Let's call them something you'd like, uh... gigglyboop! Do you like the sound of that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. Now that the person and the wall are both described by a singular noun (gigglyboop), I guess N3 doesn't work on them anymore, and the person will not be pushed backwards, right?
That's your logic.
Please point out where that copypasta (or any credible source) specifically says that one object cannot carry a second object to use as a reaction mass.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
A person on ice skates pushes a wall. Let's take that person and the wall, and call both of them something. Let's call them something you'd like, uh... gigglyboop! Do you like the sound of that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. Now that the person and the wall are both described by a singular noun (gigglyboop), I guess N3 doesn't work on them anymore, and the person will not be pushed backwards, right?
That's your logic.
LMFAO!!!
You are mental.
If you find what I stated mental, you should know that it is essentially what you're saying.
And "Lord Rockinghorse's XI" is an expert on the subject, just like Puppy Loghead! What was the subject again? We seem to have wandered so far away!If you find what I stated mental, you should know that it is essentially what you're saying.
LMFAO!!!
Let's see what Lord Rockingham's XI has to say about your lulzy hypothesis:
<< omitted "Lord Rockinghorse's XI" video! >>
Not at all.Please point out where that copypasta (or any credible source) specifically says that one object cannot carry a second object to use as a reaction mass.
Please point out why you are now claiming that a source YOU shills posted at the very start of this thread is now mere 'copypasta'?
Could it be because it proves you wrong?
A rocket does not carry a 'reaction mass'; it carries an 'action mass'.I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "action mass". Is it something your dark web aerospace engineer buddies taught you?
An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.And just what action is the rocket producing?
A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:Yes, because that is a comprehensive list of every possible action/reaction pair, right?
An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.And just what action is the rocket producing?A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:Yes, because that is a comprehensive list of every possible action/reaction pair, right?
Examples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.And just what action is the rocket producing?A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:Yes, because that is a comprehensive list of every possible action/reaction pair, right?
It's funny how Papa just ignores the rest of his "authority" for his action/reaction pairs. Here is a bit:QuoteExamples of Interaction Force Pairsfrom Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.That's the last bit of Papa's "borrowed quote", though most people would have acknowledged the source!
And then the bit he quite carefully omitted:Quote2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...Then the answer:
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See AnswerQuoteCheck your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.So we have 2 objects! The rocket AND the exhaust gases! 1 + 1 = 2!And he NEVER has anything to say about this little omission?
For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
Oh, & tweak the numbers on your fake poll too; they're very lulzy at the moment...
'because nonsense...'
lol.
Put your bottle down & get to the opticians Geoff.
Already done this you sad drunken old buffoon.Papa Legba does not understand the purpose of the ellipsis in answer d.
Look how your Q&A read when placed together:For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
They rub it in your face that they're full of shit.
And of course a rocket is One Object...Yes, and the propellant is another, separate object.
Silly superstitious dickheads!Says the voodou loa.
a car is one object and petrol is another object.
a car is one object and petrol is another object.
*Yawn!*
Read again, dickhead:
Action-Reaction Examples
We've gone through some examples already. But what are some other action-reaction examples? Let's look at a rocket engine. Newton's Third Law explains how rocket engines work. Hot gases are forced out of the back of the rocket. This is the action force. The gases exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is the reaction force. The reaction pushes the rocket upward and off the ground.
So the gases are both the action & the reaction force?
So the gases are both the action & the reaction force?The action force acts on rocket, reaction on gas. It's that simple.
Cool story bro...
Shame Newton states it's impossible.
Any more brainwashing propaganda links you wanna quote?
Gases aren't forces.
The action force acts on rocket, reaction on gas. It's that simple.
Hot gases are forced out of the back of the rocket. This is the action force. The gases exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is the reaction force. The reaction pushes the rocket upward and off the ground.
Well it's been 30 pages and going nowhere. By the way, my math is proving PL wrong and it's still undisputed, since PL hasn't posted his math to counter mine.This whole FE thing involves completely understanding how our planet works otherwise there is a danger of slipping up when trying to justify a FE.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1789395#msg1789395
What makes this difficult is, and it's pretty obvious for everyone, that PL actually understands Newton's 3rd law, yet pretending not to (I know you want to cherry-pick this sentence Papa, go ahead then, I dare you). It's probably gonna go another 30 pages without going anywhere. But keep up the good fun Papa, everyone loves mocking you. And I think it's great if you raise the target to 1000 N3 posts if you haven't reached it already.
Bullshit.
The basis for conservation of linear momentum is Newton's 1st law.
So many lies, from so many shills.
You say I'm contradicting myself by giveing a quote from someone else. Anyway how does that contradict what I said.Gases aren't forces.The action force acts on rocket, reaction on gas. It's that simple.
You really do need to read your own bullshit.
Look:Hot gases are forced out of the back of the rocket. This is the action force. The gases exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is the reaction force. The reaction pushes the rocket upward and off the ground.
Please stop contradicting yourselves & admit you do not have a clue what you are trying to say.
Oh, & STFU Conker.
Noether's Theorem has nothing to do with rocket thrust.
Hot gases are forced out of the back of the rocket. This is the action force. The gases exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is the reaction force. The reaction pushes the rocket upward and off the ground.
Object A is forced out of the back of the object b. This is the action force. The object a exerts an equal and opposite force on the object b This is the reaction force.
Air is forced away from the bird. This is the action force. The air exerts an equal and opposite force on the bird This is the reaction force.[/quote]
So you BELIEVE in conservation of linear momentum.
The only supposed Newton law that's relevant is the supposed 3rd law. For every action there is and equal and opposite reaction.But conservation of momentum is also extremely relevant.
The rest are just not required for thought, except to make up a supposed reality that is only fantasy based.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
So you BELIEVE in conservation of linear momentum.
Nice diversion shill.
'Believe' doesn't come into it; I KNOW you were lying about COM when you said Noether's Theorem was the basis for it...
Because Newton's 1st Law is the basis for COM.
As for the rest of the disinfo-garbage above; dismissed as time wasting bullshit.
Here is what 'debating' with you madmen is like:
The only supposed Newton law that's relevant is the supposed 3rd law. For every action there is and equal and opposite reaction.
The rest are just not required for thought, except to make up a supposed reality that is only fantasy based.
So you BELIEVE in conservation of linear momentum.Nice diversion shill.
'Believe' doesn't come into it; I KNOW you were lying about COM when you said Noether's Theorem was the basis for it...
Because Newton's 1st Law is the basis for COM.
As for the rest of the disinfo-garbage above; dismissed as time wasting bullshit.
Here is what 'debating' with you madmen is like:(http://)
Next time try to make a relevant joke that makes sense. It's as if I am trying to mock someone for kissing his dog in its mouth using a scene from the Shining.
Noether's theorem
This article is about Emmy Noether's first theorem, which derives conserved quantities from symmetries.
Emmy Noether was an influential mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics.
Noether's (first) theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
8.3 Momentum and Angular MomentumFrom: Chapter-7-Conslaw.pdf (http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-7-conslaw.pdf)
While the conservation law of energy follows from the symmetry of the action under
time translations, conservation laws of momentum and angular momentum are found
if the action is invariant under translations and rotations.
Ok, maybe Legba's version of the universe and laws of motions has a way to account for fuel of certain mass being thrown out of the back of the rocket without the rocket moving at all
But a rocket doesn't 'throw' anything.If the rocket doesn't "throw" anything, then what happens to the gasses after they combust?
It combusts gasses in order to create a pressure imbalance between itself & the external mass of the atmosphere, which results in motion being produced.
Yes it does the burning fuel.Ok, maybe Legba's version of the universe and laws of motions has a way to account for fuel of certain mass being thrown out of the back of the rocket without the rocket moving at all
Always comes down to this don't it, Deaf Dick?
Objects being 'thrown' from other Objects...
The old 'man-on-fucking-skateboard' schtick in other words.
But a rocket doesn't 'throw' anything.
There's a very helpful way of understanding how it does this...And your understanding of Newton's 3rd law of motion, does not agree with my understanding of it, you keep on requiring a third object (atmosphere), when there is no requirement for it.
It's called Newton's 3rd law of motion.
You should look it up sometime.
Dickhead.
Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
You explain to me how the other supposed Newton's laws are used in buildings.Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
Saying all Newton's law except the 3rd one incorrect? Interesting... Now here's the thing, a good portion of engineering use all three of those Newton's laws very extensively. For example, structural engineers use all three to design structural elements of a building to handle gravity, wind, and earthquake loads. In fact, there are so much going on that requires the application of the Newton's laws, structural analysis has to be automatized with computers. So, if you think Newton's 1st and 2nd law are incorrect, you might wanna avoid going into buildings or walking/driving over bridges, since you believe they are designed based on false principles.
Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
How about explaining what you mean.Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
so newton's third, the only one which is true, can be derived from two bogus physics law, how's that possibile?
I'm referring to the fact that newton's third can be mathematically proven using newton's second and conservation of momentum
newton's third can be mathematically proven using newton's second and conservation of momentum.So explain it as basically as you can and show me how it works.
you say that newton's third is true but the second and conservation of momentum are false.
How is possibile to prove (mathematicaly) something true starting from something false?
You explain to me how the other supposed Newton's laws are used in buildings.Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
Saying all Newton's law except the 3rd one incorrect? Interesting... Now here's the thing, a good portion of engineering use all three of those Newton's laws very extensively. For example, structural engineers use all three to design structural elements of a building to handle gravity, wind, and earthquake loads. In fact, there are so much going on that requires the application of the Newton's laws, structural analysis has to be automatized with computers. So, if you think Newton's 1st and 2nd law are incorrect, you might wanna avoid going into buildings or walking/driving over bridges, since you believe they are designed based on false principles.
Just give me the basics that physically shows the proof of those laws.
How is possibile to prove (mathematicaly) something true starting from something false?This can be done easily.
What kind of crap is that?How is possibile to prove (mathematicaly) something true starting from something false?This can be done easily.
For example:
1=0 |*0
0=0
There are more advanced examples, but this should give an impression.
As for, hello-there; when you put something like that in that literally needs a side scroll, I'll just bypass it completely.
I don't understand what you are trying to explain.As for, hello-there; when you put something like that in that literally needs a side scroll, I'll just bypass it completely.
I don't know what the issue here. If you open it in your computer or smartphone, your screen is wide enough, it's absolutely readable. It's probably because you know I'm correct there, huh? But anyway, if you still can't read it, you can go to this link instead, no excuses now.
http://docdro.id/HDFtdYP
By the way, any chance you live in a multi-storey apartment? Then you might wanna leave immediately. And don't go to malls, or hospitals, or schools, or universities or any other multi-storey infrastructures. Oh, and don't drive or walk over bridges. Because according to your belief, all of them are analyzed and designed using wrong principles. Didn't think this through, did you?
Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.Next time a 3 year old hits a golf ball 3 miles, you let me know.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
I don't understand what you are trying to explain.As for, hello-there; when you put something like that in that literally needs a side scroll, I'll just bypass it completely.
I don't know what the issue here. If you open it in your computer or smartphone, your screen is wide enough, it's absolutely readable. It's probably because you know I'm correct there, huh? But anyway, if you still can't read it, you can go to this link instead, no excuses now.
http://docdro.id/HDFtdYP
By the way, any chance you live in a multi-storey apartment? Then you might wanna leave immediately. And don't go to malls, or hospitals, or schools, or universities or any other multi-storey infrastructures. Oh, and don't drive or walk over bridges. Because according to your belief, all of them are analyzed and designed using wrong principles. Didn't think this through, did you?
Why don't you explain it simply to me and tell me what's going on with the structure. Don't use magic. I want an explanation.
I don't understand what you are trying to explain.As for, hello-there; when you put something like that in that literally needs a side scroll, I'll just bypass it completely.
I don't know what the issue here. If you open it in your computer or smartphone, your screen is wide enough, it's absolutely readable. It's probably because you know I'm correct there, huh? But anyway, if you still can't read it, you can go to this link instead, no excuses now.
http://docdro.id/HDFtdYP
By the way, any chance you live in a multi-storey apartment? Then you might wanna leave immediately. And don't go to malls, or hospitals, or schools, or universities or any other multi-storey infrastructures. Oh, and don't drive or walk over bridges. Because according to your belief, all of them are analyzed and designed using wrong principles. Didn't think this through, did you?
Why don't you explain it simply to me and tell me what's going on with the structure. Don't use magic. I want an explanation.
You make no sense. Explain. This is why I keep asking for explanations and this is what I get. What are you explaining. Be clear and basic to get your point across.Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.Next time a 3 year old hits a golf ball 3 miles, you let me know.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
Explain what? Your lack of knowledge?You make no sense. Explain. This is why I keep asking for explanations and this is what I get. What are you explaining. Be clear and basic to get your point across.Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.Next time a 3 year old hits a golf ball 3 miles, you let me know.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
First, you complained about the layout being messy hence unreadable, which I never received in my previous posts.Nope, I said it was massive and was a scrolling nightmare.
Then you said you can't read it cause you can't understand it, well read it slower and put your mind into it!No I didn't.
That problem is super simple. To put it into perspective, one has to be about 2 and a half years into civil engineering undergraduate course to fully be able to do structural analysis and completely solve similar problems. That particular problem still captures the essence of what's going on, yet so simplified even a student just one week into the course (which practically haven't learned anything) can solve that. Because it only requires the understanding of Newton's 1st Law, which he/she already got from high school. And of course, there's no magic in there, just a total of 10 lines of equation (2 are the Newton's 1st law itself, 2 are just repetitions for the purpose of comparison, so you only need to understand 6 of them).I await your explanation.
But if you still don't get it, here's the what I'm trying to explain:Ok you're claiming it. I want you to explain it and tell me what you're explaining, basically.
I claimed that structural engineers use Newton's 1st law of motion (and of course the 2nd and the 3rd also).
You wanted the application and physical proof, so that's what I provided.You've provided nothing that proves anything and you know this..
You can go to a 25+ multi-storey building, compare for yourself the columns at the bottom and at the top, you will see that columns at ground level are larger than the ones at the top, because columns at ground level experience greater compressive force. (concrete buildings are better for this experiment; in steel buildings the columns are usually covered with plywood, so measuring the cross section will require some form of vandalism)So what's causing this compression and can you explain why?
Now why columns at the bottom experiences greater compressive force? This can easily be proven by Newton's 1st law. In order for you to understand how that's so, I presented a super simple problem there representing a multi-storey building, with results showing that columns at the bottom are indeed experience higher compression compared to the ones at the top.
If you still don't understand, you can just read the first few chapters of the first book I recommended, Statics by R.C. Hibbeler. You can buy it anywhere or find it in libraries. You can also get a copy in some other ways, if you know what I mean. Or you can get any other books discussing statics, or learn statics from other sources.I want you to explain in basic terms.
If you still don't understand it, you can just tell me in which part that you don't understand. And I don't take "all of it" as an answer, coz surely you understand at least the first and the last sentence in there, otherwise you might wanna learn English some more.I'm still waiting.
You do realize that all of Newton's Laws are used to design and predict things successfully?So I hear. I just want a simple explanation as to what these laws entail physically.
Newton's 1st Law Explains Why:Yep but it proves nothing of what causes it.
If you roll a ball on a flat surface it will eventual stop, due to friction or hitting something.
If someone drives a car into a wall not wearing a seat belt the car will stop and the person will will continue to move forward, possibly through the windshield.Again, you're not telling me why.
Newton's 2nd Law Explains Why:This is still not telling me why.
A heavier car will have lower MPG than a lighter car using the same engine.
Applying the same amount of force to a 10 Kg and a 5 Kg object will cause the 5Kg to accelerate faster.Yes but why.
Unless the above can be disproved Newton's Laws will stand.I'd like you to prove to me what's happening for all this stuff to work. It's ok saying this law and that. Explain what it is and how it works.
You do realize that all of Newton's Laws are used to design and predict things successfully?So I hear. I just want a simple explanation as to what these laws entail physically.Newton's 1st Law Explains Why:Yep but it proves nothing of what causes it.
If you roll a ball on a flat surface it will eventual stop, due to friction or hitting something.If someone drives a car into a wall not wearing a seat belt the car will stop and the person will will continue to move forward, possibly through the windshield.Again, you're not telling me why.Newton's 2nd Law Explains Why:This is still not telling me why.
A heavier car will have lower MPG than a lighter car using the same engine.Applying the same amount of force to a 10 Kg and a 5 Kg object will cause the 5Kg to accelerate faster.Yes but why.Unless the above can be disproved Newton's Laws will stand.I'd like you to prove to me what's happening for all this stuff to work. It's ok saying this law and that. Explain what it is and how it works.
Still waiting for an example where momentum isn't conserved.Tell me exactly where momentum can be conserved.
Are you sure you are not just being willfully ignorant?I could say the same about you. You're being willfully avoiding explaining.
If you do not realize what you are doing is continually asking, "why?" I can do the same thing with any topic. Just keep asking why, eventually it reaches a point where the person runs out of answers. Unless they know exactly why when the universe was formed things are the way they are.Nahhh, you can't just say that and expect me to swallow it.
You believe the 3rd law is right, why is it? How did Newton and others who say it is right come to that conclusion? They observed, measured, made a conclusion and accurate predictions.It's about common sense and actually seeing it first hand in Everything we do, every day and with every movement.
To answer why, it is just how physics works. If I use the same amount of force on two objects the lighter one will accelerate faster. A truck will get better MPG with a lighter load or going down hill. If I am traveling in a car and slam on the breaks I will continue traveling forward a certain distance unless something like a seat belt counteracts the force. All of which can be accurately predicted using Newton's Laws.You're still not answering. You're just telling me things with no reason behind what you're telling me.
Still waiting for an example where momentum isn't conserved.Tell me exactly where momentum can be conserved.
Let me just focus your mind. You need to find an environment when momentum can stay CONSTANT until it is acted upon to stop that CONSTANT.
So what we are dealing with is the conservation of this momentum, or keeping a CONSTANT.
Give me the environment that allows for this and prove it.
I asked you a question, are you going to answer it?Still waiting for an example where momentum isn't conserved.Tell me exactly where momentum can be conserved.
Let me just focus your mind. You need to find an environment when momentum can stay CONSTANT until it is acted upon to stop that CONSTANT.
So what we are dealing with is the conservation of this momentum, or keeping a CONSTANT.
Give me the environment that allows for this and prove it.
It isn't conservation of momentum.Still waiting for an example where momentum isn't conserved.Tell me exactly where momentum can be conserved.
Let me just focus your mind. You need to find an environment when momentum can stay CONSTANT until it is acted upon to stop that CONSTANT.
So what we are dealing with is the conservation of this momentum, or keeping a CONSTANT.
Give me the environment that allows for this and prove it.
Here is something where they made predictions and measurements.
Why not go to a local bar and watch or play some pool? You can see conservation of motion in action while having a beer and some fun.
I asked you a question, are you going to answer it?Still waiting for an example where momentum isn't conserved.Tell me exactly where momentum can be conserved.
Let me just focus your mind. You need to find an environment when momentum can stay CONSTANT until it is acted upon to stop that CONSTANT.
So what we are dealing with is the conservation of this momentum, or keeping a CONSTANT.
Give me the environment that allows for this and prove it.
It isn't conservation of momentum.Still waiting for an example where momentum isn't conserved.Tell me exactly where momentum can be conserved.
Let me just focus your mind. You need to find an environment when momentum can stay CONSTANT until it is acted upon to stop that CONSTANT.
So what we are dealing with is the conservation of this momentum, or keeping a CONSTANT.
Give me the environment that allows for this and prove it.
Here is something where they made predictions and measurements.
Why not go to a local bar and watch or play some pool? You can see conservation of motion in action while having a beer and some fun.
But if you still don't get it, here's the what I'm trying to explain:Ok you're claiming it. I want you to explain it and tell me what you're explaining, basically.
I claimed that structural engineers use Newton's 1st law of motion (and of course the 2nd and the 3rd also).You wanted the application and physical proof, so that's what I provided.You've provided nothing that proves anything and you know this..You can go to a 25+ multi-storey building, compare for yourself the columns at the bottom and at the top, you will see that columns at ground level are larger than the ones at the top, because columns at ground level experience greater compressive force. (concrete buildings are better for this experiment; in steel buildings the columns are usually covered with plywood, so measuring the cross section will require some form of vandalism)So what's causing this compression and can you explain why?
Now why columns at the bottom experiences greater compressive force? This can easily be proven by Newton's 1st law. In order for you to understand how that's so, I presented a super simple problem there representing a multi-storey building, with results showing that columns at the bottom are indeed experience higher compression compared to the ones at the top.If you still don't understand, you can just read the first few chapters of the first book I recommended, Statics by R.C. Hibbeler. You can buy it anywhere or find it in libraries. You can also get a copy in some other ways, if you know what I mean. Or you can get any other books discussing statics, or learn statics from other sources.I want you to explain in basic terms.If you still don't understand it, you can just tell me in which part that you don't understand. And I don't take "all of it" as an answer, coz surely you understand at least the first and the last sentence in there, otherwise you might wanna learn English some more.I'm still waiting.
So sorry about this, but you can either take my word or pursue a bachelor degree in civil engineering to experience it yourself.That problem is super simple. To put it into perspective, one has to be about 2 and a half years into civil engineering undergraduate course to fully be able to do structural analysis and completely solve similar problems. That particular problem still captures the essence of what's going on, yet so simplified even a student just one week into the course (which practically haven't learned anything) can solve that. Because it only requires the understanding of Newton's 1st Law, which he/she already got from high school. And of course, there's no magic in there, just a total of 10 lines of equation (2 are the Newton's 1st law itself, 2 are just repetitions for the purpose of comparison, so you only need to understand 6 of them).I await your explanation.
Ok then, there it is:But if you still don't get it, here's the what I'm trying to explain:Ok you're claiming it. I want you to explain it and tell me what you're explaining, basically.
I claimed that structural engineers use Newton's 1st law of motion (and of course the 2nd and the 3rd also).
Again, there it is:You wanted the application and physical proof, so that's what I provided.You've provided nothing that proves anything and you know this..
OK, this can get quite complicated rather quickly. You can either take my word for it, read books about mechanics of materials or solid mechanics (if you don't already know, I recommend Statics and Mechanics of Materials by R. C. Hibbeler), or you can try to understand the following explanation. You cannot say I'm wrong yet not understanding what I'm talking about. OK here it goes:You can go to a 25+ multi-storey building, compare for yourself the columns at the bottom and at the top, you will see that columns at ground level are larger than the ones at the top, because columns at ground level experience greater compressive force. (concrete buildings are better for this experiment; in steel buildings the columns are usually covered with plywood, so measuring the cross section will require some form of vandalism)So what's causing this compression and can you explain why?
Now why columns at the bottom experiences greater compressive force? This can easily be proven by Newton's 1st law. In order for you to understand how that's so, I presented a super simple problem there representing a multi-storey building, with results showing that columns at the bottom are indeed experience higher compression compared to the ones at the top.
Well I'm the one asking you the question. If you don't understand, tell me in which part you don't understand. I have explained it as simple as possible. If you're not satisfied with my explanation, then read the books I recommended, or some other books, or somewhere else. You not understanding is not my problem, and without understanding it you cannot refute my argument. So, until then, my point is still undisputed:If you still don't understand, you can just read the first few chapters of the first book I recommended, Statics by R.C. Hibbeler. You can buy it anywhere or find it in libraries. You can also get a copy in some other ways, if you know what I mean. Or you can get any other books discussing statics, or learn statics from other sources.I want you to explain in basic terms.If you still don't understand it, you can just tell me in which part that you don't understand. And I don't take "all of it" as an answer, coz surely you understand at least the first and the last sentence in there, otherwise you might wanna learn English some more.I'm still waiting.
Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
The entire reason why conservation of momentum cannot be a definite is because of denpressure.Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
Was that so hard?
The entire reason why conservation of momentum cannot be a definite is because of denpressure.Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
Was that so hard?
You do know that the air can carry momentum, so when a coin slows down the momentum is taken by the air and table.The entire reason why conservation of momentum cannot be a definite is because of denpressure.Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
Was that so hard?
If we want to go in the direction you want to go in then we can simply go straight back to the third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is basically what your conservation of momentum is trying to tell us.The entire reason why conservation of momentum cannot be a definite is because of denpressure.Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
Was that so hard?
So your argument is based on your very rigid definition. Seems similar to calling space a vacuum. While not a perfect vacuum we still call it that.
Can you show where loss of momentum is greater than what something like friction would cause?
All covered by one law, as I said earlier.You do know that the air can carry momentum, so when a coin slows down the momentum is taken by the air and table.The entire reason why conservation of momentum cannot be a definite is because of denpressure.Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
Was that so hard?
Newtons third law only says the two forces will be in opposite directions and have same strength. To work out how much something will accelerate you need F=ma, which is the second law.Yes that's fair enough but momentum is not conserved in the grand scheme of things and is still based on the same law of action/reaction.
Newtons third law only says the two forces will be in opposite directions and have same strength. To work out how much something will accelerate you need F=ma, which is the second law.Yes that's fair enough but momentum is not conserved in the grand scheme of things and is still based on the same law of action/reaction.
Only you have mentioned wrong building designs.Newtons third law only says the two forces will be in opposite directions and have same strength. To work out how much something will accelerate you need F=ma, which is the second law.Yes that's fair enough but momentum is not conserved in the grand scheme of things and is still based on the same law of action/reaction.
Not sure if he's trolling or believes it for real. And it's funny how one can cherry-pick laws of physics, proposed as a set by a single person, and on top of that, without even bothering to proof the allegedly incorrect laws to be incorrect.
By the way, did you post that from outside of your apartment? Also don't forget, don't go to school/university/work tomorrow, the buildings are wrongly designed according to your beliefs.
Only you have mentioned wrong building designs.Yeah, but not exactly.
the buildings are wrongly designed according to your beliefs.That's what I said. And it's super easy to deduce that you believe all multi-storey buildings are wrongly designed (according to my beliefs though, most of them are just fine). Do you want me to repeat the deduction process for like the 3rd time?
All you're doing is parroting what's in the books ...
... and you don't know why, except to say "it just is."
If you would bother to read the books, then you might notice that they explain step by step exactly why things are the way they say they are.Only you have mentioned wrong building designs.Newtons third law only says the two forces will be in opposite directions and have same strength. To work out how much something will accelerate you need F=ma, which is the second law.Yes that's fair enough but momentum is not conserved in the grand scheme of things and is still based on the same law of action/reaction.
Not sure if he's trolling or believes it for real. And it's funny how one can cherry-pick laws of physics, proposed as a set by a single person, and on top of that, without even bothering to proof the allegedly incorrect laws to be incorrect.
By the way, did you post that from outside of your apartment? Also don't forget, don't go to school/university/work tomorrow, the buildings are wrongly designed according to your beliefs.
All you're doing is parroting what's in the books and you don't know why, except to say "it just is."
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.The entire reason why conservation of momentum cannot be a definite is because of denpressure.Ok let's put this into a reality perspective.Congrats, you agree with Newton.(minus denpessure)
A true representation of conservation of momentum cannot be achieved unless it was performed in a perfect vacuum.
The issue with that is, a perfect vacuum would be the absence of all matter and would then be known as suspended animation for any object withing that, IF objects could be within it, which they can't.
So what we have is not conservation of momentum. It needs to be refined and also explained to give realism.
Was that so hard?
I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Only you have mentioned wrong building designs.Yeah, but not exactly.the buildings are wrongly designed according to your beliefs.That's what I said. And it's super easy to deduce that you believe all multi-storey buildings are wrongly designed (according to my beliefs though, most of them are just fine). Do you want me to repeat the deduction process for like the 3rd time?
It's like you saying to me "I usually have sex twice a week these days", then when I tell people "hey guys, according to scepti he's not a virgin anymore", you rant saying "you're making this up hello_there, I've never said I'm not a virgin, you're the one saying that", which is technically correct yet so wrong in context, and just showing how stupid you are.
And that's an analogy, it's a way of explaining the workings of something by explaining other thing with the same working principle. So don't say "you're stupid, explaining engineering with sex". Man, I have to repeat these kinda things every freakin' time just so that trolls don't play dumb this way.All you're doing is parroting what's in the books ...
I could have just posted one or two times if you didn't play dumb, you know. But you want to play it this way, so I'll keep it coming then.
And if what you mean by parroting is copying from the book, then that's an accusation you're not even remotely sure it's correct. FYI, I didn't even open those books when I wrote those posts. I know exactly what I'm talking about, and just opened the table of contents of those books to make sure they're the relevant ones to recommend. You can compare my posts with any sections on any books I mentioned, take your time, you're not gonna find a match.... and you don't know why, except to say "it just is."
Why what? Why structural engineers use Newton's 1st and 2nd law? Or why Newton's 1st and 2nd laws are correct? Well, if you have been paying attention, you can definitely deduce yourself that I'm not trying to answer the first question, and I'm not even explicitly trying to answer the second one. Neither are my points hence irrelevant. Do you want me to explain it again too?
Of course they do. The issue is in terms of the fictional laws.If you would bother to read the books, then you might notice that they explain step by step exactly why things are the way they say they are.Only you have mentioned wrong building designs.Newtons third law only says the two forces will be in opposite directions and have same strength. To work out how much something will accelerate you need F=ma, which is the second law.Yes that's fair enough but momentum is not conserved in the grand scheme of things and is still based on the same law of action/reaction.
Not sure if he's trolling or believes it for real. And it's funny how one can cherry-pick laws of physics, proposed as a set by a single person, and on top of that, without even bothering to proof the allegedly incorrect laws to be incorrect.
By the way, did you post that from outside of your apartment? Also don't forget, don't go to school/university/work tomorrow, the buildings are wrongly designed according to your beliefs.
All you're doing is parroting what's in the books and you don't know why, except to say "it just is."
No they don't. You not understanding what's being said destroys your argument against it.
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.
Friction does steal some momentum.At least you are starting to learn.
This is not to say momentum is not conserved though.And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like, I love you. Well, saying it's still conserved when you can clearly see it isn't.
You are partly right. Strictly speaking Conservation of Momentum applies only to an isolated system.No they don't. You not understanding what's being said destroys your argument against it.
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.Friction does steal some momentum.At least you are starting to learn.This is not to say momentum is not conserved though.And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like, I love you. Well, saying it's still conserved when you can clearly see it isn't.
I said that conservation of momentum is not possible. You can argue the toss with this stuff, by all means but the crux of the matter is, I am correct.You are partly right. Strictly speaking Conservation of Momentum applies only to an isolated system.No they don't. You not understanding what's being said destroys your argument against it.
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.Friction does steal some momentum.At least you are starting to learn.This is not to say momentum is not conserved though.And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like, I love you. Well, saying it's still conserved when you can clearly see it isn't.
And, as you say, the only way to achieve this perfectly might be to have the "system" isolated in a vacuum possibly in space.
So one obvious application is in calculating the thrust of a rocket in space. The "isolated system" can be taken as large as we need to encompass the rocket and the ejected exhaust gas. Actually the "system" need include only include the rocket and any ejected fuel that can still affect the rocket. The exhaust finally disperses, but by then it cannot affect the rocket. I won't go further on this, it's been done to death.Of course if you don't even accept the "kinetic theory of gases" then the rocket thrust might be a problem.On earth, while it might be impossible to remove all outside forces CoM can be a very close approximation.It is not CoM that is wrong, just that it might be hard to identify the system.
The collisions of say billiard balls is an example where CoM can give a very close approximation. There is some rolling friction and air resistance, but from immediately before to immediately after the collision these have a minor effect.
And of course the Newton's cradle is a classic example:(http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/newtons-cradle-1.jpg)
I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Grab a book on structural engineering - read it.
I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used. the issue is, they are used as a smokescreen against the real truth of denpressure.I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Grab a book on structural engineering - read it.
I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used. the issue is, they are used as a smokescreen against the real truth of denpressure.
This has been explained to you so read back on it all. It's all there for you to peruse.
Feel free to question as much as you want. Feel free to adhere like a limpet to a man called Newton who supposedly set out some laws. Feel free to do what you wish.I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used. the issue is, they are used as a smokescreen against the real truth of denpressure.
This has been explained to you so read back on it all. It's all there for you to peruse.
How dare anyone question the all knowing sceptimatic, mind his theories differ from most flat earthers and probably all globe earthers,but of course sceptimatic know best!It's quite hilarious that sceptimatic decries equations and sandokhan spews them all over the page, but we dare not disagree with either!
We are really in a pickle!As for me, I'll take the easy way and just accept Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.Corrected by GR when needed, of course! Much simpler and it works.
Well good luck getting that accepted, you sure are going to need it!Feel free to question as much as you want. Feel free to adhere like a limpet to a man called Newton who supposedly set out some laws. Feel free to do what you wish.I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used. the issue is, they are used as a smokescreen against the real truth of denpressure.
This has been explained to you so read back on it all. It's all there for you to peruse.
How dare anyone question the all knowing sceptimatic, mind his theories differ from most flat earthers and probably all globe earthers,but of course sceptimatic know best!It's quite hilarious that sceptimatic decries equations and sandokhan spews them all over the page, but we dare not disagree with either!
We are really in a pickle!As for me, I'll take the easy way and just accept Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.Corrected by GR when needed, of course! Much simpler and it works.
In the meantime, I'll feel free to know that Newtons laws are just a smokescreen to hide the real truth of my denpressure theory.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newtons law? Who knows and who cares. It's a simple way to understand everything that happens on Earth because nothing can happen, otherwise.
I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.
I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used.I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Grab a book on structural engineering - read it.
;) You have a real problem there, hello_there! As far as I know, sceptimatic is one that doesn't do equations! ;)I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.
You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.
You've repeated this and then again and you seriously think you're explaining stuff.
Let me make this easier for you.
Tell me about Newtons laws using simple analogies for why they work and the reasons behind it all.
Do not just say stuff like " well, you walk into a building so one law works."
Now start again and use your logical mind, then I can explain why the laws are naff, except for the action/reaction in ATMOSPHERE..
You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.Stepping on a bathroom scale proves you wrong.
Just give it up. I asked you to explain what it all is and you just keep coming out with the same crap.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.
You've repeated this and then again and you seriously think you're explaining stuff.
Let me make this easier for you.
Tell me about Newtons laws using simple analogies for why they work and the reasons behind it all.
Do not just say stuff like " well, you walk into a building so one law works."
Now start again and use your logical mind, then I can explain why the laws are naff, except for the action/reaction in ATMOSPHERE..
I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.Tell me which point you think is incorrect, and I'll explain further. Otherwise, my statement is undisputed.
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
No it doesn't. A scale plate works by measuring the force placed upon you by the atmosphere as you step onto it to push into that atmosphere.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.Stepping on a bathroom scale proves you wrong.
A scale uses Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to determine your weight by measuring how much force your body mass exerts as a result of your downwards acceleration due to earth's gravitational field.
Just give it up. I asked you to explain what it all is and you just keep coming out with the same crap.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.
You've repeated this and then again and you seriously think you're explaining stuff.
Let me make this easier for you.
Tell me about Newtons laws using simple analogies for why they work and the reasons behind it all.
Do not just say stuff like " well, you walk into a building so one law works."
Now start again and use your logical mind, then I can explain why the laws are naff, except for the action/reaction in ATMOSPHERE..
I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.Tell me which point you think is incorrect, and I'll explain further. Otherwise, my statement is undisputed.
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
Leave it there and keep your little building code. I can't be dealing with someone who won't explain what he harps on about.Just give it up. I asked you to explain what it all is and you just keep coming out with the same crap.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.
You've repeated this and then again and you seriously think you're explaining stuff.
Let me make this easier for you.
Tell me about Newtons laws using simple analogies for why they work and the reasons behind it all.
Do not just say stuff like " well, you walk into a building so one law works."
Now start again and use your logical mind, then I can explain why the laws are naff, except for the action/reaction in ATMOSPHERE..
I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.Tell me which point you think is incorrect, and I'll explain further. Otherwise, my statement is undisputed.
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
I just needed to prove that structural engineers do use Newton's 1st law for point number 3, which I already did. As for me not explaining the why and how, it compromises which point? Number 1? 2? 3? or 4? No? Well if that's the case, then the fact that you're contradicting yourself is still undisputed, simply because you're not disputing it.
Then I guess that it's just a coincidence that the atmosphere presses with same amount of force that is calculated by using F=ma, regardless of the air pressure.No it doesn't. A scale plate works by measuring the force placed upon you by the atmosphere as you step onto it to push into that atmosphere.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.Stepping on a bathroom scale proves you wrong.
A scale uses Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to determine your weight by measuring how much force your body mass exerts as a result of your downwards acceleration due to earth's gravitational field.
You're not making any sense.Then I guess that it's just a coincidence that the atmosphere presses with same amount of force that is calculated by using F=ma, regardless of the air pressure.No it doesn't. A scale plate works by measuring the force placed upon you by the atmosphere as you step onto it to push into that atmosphere.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.Stepping on a bathroom scale proves you wrong.
A scale uses Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to determine your weight by measuring how much force your body mass exerts as a result of your downwards acceleration due to earth's gravitational field.
It's funny that I've heard of barometric altimeters but never barometric bathroom scales. Maybe you should patent it and make a fortune.
Leave it there and keep your little building code. I can't be dealing with someone who won't explain what he harps on about.I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.Just give it up. I asked you to explain what it all is and you just keep coming out with the same crap.Tell me which point you think is incorrect, and I'll explain further. Otherwise, my statement is undisputed.
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
I just needed to prove that structural engineers do use Newton's 1st law for point number 3, which I already did. As for me not explaining the why and how, it compromises which point? Number 1? 2? 3? or 4? No? Well if that's the case, then the fact that you're contradicting yourself is still undisputed, simply because you're not disputing it.
I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.So you're not refuting point number 1, you're not refuting point number 2, you're not refuting point number 3, and you're not refuting point number 4. Great, all 4 correct! So it's clear that you're contradicting yourself, hence debunking your argument of Newton's 1st law being incorrect. Another undisputed win for the roundies ;D ;D
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used.I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Grab a book on structural engineering - read it.
Come back to me when you explain what I asked.Leave it there and keep your little building code. I can't be dealing with someone who won't explain what he harps on about.I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.Just give it up. I asked you to explain what it all is and you just keep coming out with the same crap.Tell me which point you think is incorrect, and I'll explain further. Otherwise, my statement is undisputed.
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
I just needed to prove that structural engineers do use Newton's 1st law for point number 3, which I already did. As for me not explaining the why and how, it compromises which point? Number 1? 2? 3? or 4? No? Well if that's the case, then the fact that you're contradicting yourself is still undisputed, simply because you're not disputing it.
Nice, ran out of arguments huh?I've done the super-simple, long and step-by-step, now I'll do the quick and brief one.So you're not refuting point number 1, you're not refuting point number 2, you're not refuting point number 3, and you're not refuting point number 4. Great, all 4 correct! So it's clear that you're contradicting yourself, hence debunking your argument of Newton's 1st law being incorrect. Another undisputed win for the roundies ;D ;D
- Considering you step into building(s) everyday, therefore you believe the building won't collapse and kill you
- Considering you believe the building won't collapse and kill you, therefore you believe the building is designed correctly
- I've proven that building is designed using Newton's 1st law, and considering you believe it's designed correctly, therefore you believe Newton's 1st law is correct
- Considering you believe Newton's 1st law is correct, and you previously stated that Newton's 1st law is incorrect, therefore you are contradicting yourself
Although if you really want to know why and how structural engineers use Newton's laws of motion (and I think you really do want to know, since you asked me more than once), you can start a new thread and ask me there.
Glad that we got that settled, now let's move on to your next argument:I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used.I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Grab a book on structural engineering - read it.
So please, tell me what do you know about structural engineering. After all, you know how it works, right?
1. There is only evidence against denpessure.No they don't. You not understanding what's being said destroys your argument against it.
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.Friction does steal some momentum.At least you are starting to learn.This is not to say momentum is not conserved though.And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like, I love you. Well, saying it's still conserved when you can clearly see it isn't.
That's alright, neither are you. You're pretty much trying to use buoyancy (denpressure) to explain weight. The two have some similar properties, but they aren't the same thing and shouldn't be confused with each other.You're not making any sense.Then I guess that it's just a coincidence that the atmosphere presses with same amount of force that is calculated by using F=ma, regardless of the air pressure.No it doesn't. A scale plate works by measuring the force placed upon you by the atmosphere as you step onto it to push into that atmosphere.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.Stepping on a bathroom scale proves you wrong.
A scale uses Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to determine your weight by measuring how much force your body mass exerts as a result of your downwards acceleration due to earth's gravitational field.
It's funny that I've heard of barometric altimeters but never barometric bathroom scales. Maybe you should patent it and make a fortune.
What more can I say?1. There is only evidence against denpessure. WRONGNo they don't. You not understanding what's being said destroys your argument against it.
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.Friction does steal some momentum.At least you are starting to learn.This is not to say momentum is not conserved though.And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like, I love you. Well, saying it's still conserved when you can clearly see it isn't.
2. Newton knows about friction. Good for him.
3. Saying momentum isn't conserved because of friction is incorrect. WRONG
No, I'm not using buoyancy to explain weight.That's alright, neither are you. You're pretty much trying to use buoyancy (denpressure) to explain weight. The two have some similar properties, but they aren't the same thing and shouldn't be confused with each other.You're not making any sense.Then I guess that it's just a coincidence that the atmosphere presses with same amount of force that is calculated by using F=ma, regardless of the air pressure.No it doesn't. A scale plate works by measuring the force placed upon you by the atmosphere as you step onto it to push into that atmosphere.You've went through all of that to tell me that walking into a building renders my thoughts wrong.Stepping on a bathroom scale proves you wrong.
A scale uses Newton's 2nd law (F=ma) to determine your weight by measuring how much force your body mass exerts as a result of your downwards acceleration due to earth's gravitational field.
It's funny that I've heard of barometric altimeters but never barometric bathroom scales. Maybe you should patent it and make a fortune.
Come back to me when you explain what I asked.
You know what? I won't ask for your explanations any more, I know that you don't know. So I'll just conclude that you're a liar, your claim of knowing how structural engineering works is bullshit, and it's another undisputed win for the roundies, unless you prove otherwise.So please, tell me what do you know about structural engineering. After all, you know how it works, right?I don't need to. I know how it works and I know that bullshit Newtons laws are used.I'd like you to explain how Newtons supposed laws are needed for building. Now what I mean by that is, tell me how they are used, physically that proves the laws are valid.Grab a book on structural engineering - read it.
You're still not telling me anything.Yeah right ::). So search more on google then, or read those books I recommended. But no matter, you're still a liar though, until you prove otherwise.
You could post evidence.What more can I say?1. There is only evidence against denpessure. WRONGNo they don't. You not understanding what's being said destroys your argument against it.
Actually, I, hills and mountains, gas cylinders, and other users have completely destroyed denpressure.Friction does steal some momentum.At least you are starting to learn.This is not to say momentum is not conserved though.And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like, I love you. Well, saying it's still conserved when you can clearly see it isn't.
2. Newton knows about friction. Good for him.
3. Saying momentum isn't conserved because of friction is incorrect. WRONG
When you actually explain what you're talking about using simple basic common sense and not copied book answers that suit, then you might have something to say and I can then show you why you're absolutely wrong and why parroting proves nothing, other than the fact that you blindly follow peer pressure and cannot think for yourself.You're still not telling me anything.Yeah right ::). So search more on google then, or read those books I recommended. But no matter, you're still a liar though, until you prove otherwise.
You could post evidence.Of course they do. Just remember that weight is merely a man made measurement on a scale and is also subject to pressure change, as you well know.
Objects under less pressure don't weigh less.
Objects under more pressure don't weigh more. Thus, no denpessure.Of course they do. Just remember that weight is merely a man made measurement on a scale and is also subject to pressure change, as you well know.
Applying external forces doesn't automatically make something wrong. That's like saying bugatti's are slow because you chained one to a 500 ton Boulder.I don't even know what you're getting at with this bit.
Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
When you actually explain what you're talking about using simple basic common sense and not copied book answers that suit, then you might have something to say and I can then show you why you're absolutely wrong and why parroting proves nothing, other than the fact that you blindly follow peer pressure and cannot think for yourself.You're still not telling me anything.Yeah right ::). So search more on google then, or read those books I recommended. But no matter, you're still a liar though, until you prove otherwise.
... to predict the dynamic behavior of structures. The application? Well, it's actually considerably complicated, ...Then why do you accuse me of copying from those books? Lying again huh? If not, then prove that my posts there are copied from the books.
The relationships between weight, mass and gravity were sorted out ages ago. Scepti is simply trying to renegotiate the terms of those relationships.Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
You're still not telling me anything.No, you are just refusing to listen and wallowing in your own ignorance.
My videos show no change in weight. Climbing a mountain shows no change in weight. Objects under high pressure don't show a change in weight.
gravitation is still a well known, measurable and predictable phenomenon, regardless of its cause.
So the gases are both the action & the reaction force?
Cool story bro...
Shame Newton states it's impossible.
Any more brainwashing propaganda links you wanna quote?
Ok, maybe Legba's version of the universe and laws of motions has a way to account for fuel of certain mass being thrown out of the back of the rocket without the rocket moving at all
Always comes down to this don't it, Deaf Dick?
Objects being 'thrown' from other Objects...
The old 'man-on-fucking-skateboard' schtick in other words.
But a rocket doesn't 'throw' anything.
It combusts gasses in order to create a pressure imbalance between itself & the external mass of the atmosphere, which results in motion being produced.
There's a very helpful way of understanding how it does this...
It's called Newton's 3rd law of motion.
You should look it up sometime.
Dickhead.
Conservation of momentum is bogus. It cannot happen and never will happen.
These supposed Newtons laws are all crap, except the law of equal reaction to action.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple and correct.
All the rest of it is crap and does not show reality unless it has made up nonsense to aid it along.
newton's third can be mathematically proven using newton's second and conservation of momentum.
you say that newton's third is true but the second and conservation of momentum are false.
How is possibile to prove (mathematicaly) something true starting from something false?
As for, hello-there; when you put something like that in that literally needs a side scroll, I'll just bypass it completely.
What kind of crap is that?How is possibile to prove (mathematicaly) something true starting from something false?This can be done easily.
For example:
1=0 |*0
0=0
There are more advanced examples, but this should give an impression.
Then you said you can't read it cause you can't understand it, well read it slower and put your mind into it!No I didn't.
You didn't put your mind into it? Well, that's self explanatory, no need to specify it ;D ;D ;D ;D
First, you complained about the layout being messy hence unreadable, which I never received in my previous posts.Nope, I said it was massive and was a scrolling nightmare.Then you said you can't read it cause you can't understand it, well read it slower and put your mind into it!No I didn't.That problem is super simple. To put it into perspective, one has to be about 2 and a half years into civil engineering undergraduate course to fully be able to do structural analysis and completely solve similar problems. That particular problem still captures the essence of what's going on, yet so simplified even a student just one week into the course (which practically haven't learned anything) can solve that. Because it only requires the understanding of Newton's 1st Law, which he/she already got from high school. And of course, there's no magic in there, just a total of 10 lines of equation (2 are the Newton's 1st law itself, 2 are just repetitions for the purpose of comparison, so you only need to understand 6 of them).I await your explanation.But if you still don't get it, here's the what I'm trying to explain:Ok you're claiming it. I want you to explain it and tell me what you're explaining, basically.
I claimed that structural engineers use Newton's 1st law of motion (and of course the 2nd and the 3rd also).You wanted the application and physical proof, so that's what I provided.You've provided nothing that proves anything and you know this..You can go to a 25+ multi-storey building, compare for yourself the columns at the bottom and at the top, you will see that columns at ground level are larger than the ones at the top, because columns at ground level experience greater compressive force. (concrete buildings are better for this experiment; in steel buildings the columns are usually covered with plywood, so measuring the cross section will require some form of vandalism)So what's causing this compression and can you explain why?
Now why columns at the bottom experiences greater compressive force? This can easily be proven by Newton's 1st law. In order for you to understand how that's so, I presented a super simple problem there representing a multi-storey building, with results showing that columns at the bottom are indeed experience higher compression compared to the ones at the top.If you still don't understand, you can just read the first few chapters of the first book I recommended, Statics by R.C. Hibbeler. You can buy it anywhere or find it in libraries. You can also get a copy in some other ways, if you know what I mean. Or you can get any other books discussing statics, or learn statics from other sources.I want you to explain in basic terms.If you still don't understand it, you can just tell me in which part that you don't understand. And I don't take "all of it" as an answer, coz surely you understand at least the first and the last sentence in there, otherwise you might wanna learn English some more.I'm still waiting.
WTF are you talking about????????????
My videos show no change in weight. Climbing a mountain shows no change in weight. Objects under high pressure don't show a change in weight.
So fucking what you prick?
I said 'altitude', not 'pressure'...
You lying, shitposting gimp.gravitation is still a well known, measurable and predictable phenomenon, regardless of its cause.
Maybe you should tell that to your fuck-buddy sokarul, 'John'?
Seriously; you should both be perma-banned for your bullshit, yet you have been allowed to make over 50,000 posts between you...
FIFTY. FUCKING. THOUSAND!
Not even slightly debatable that this is a shill-run forum.
No doubt whatsoever...
Anyhoo; I will discuss this matter with scepti elsewhere...
This place is fucked.
Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
Of course, as the jackals here cannot discern between a Law of Motion & a Principle of Reciprocity, I will discuss it with you on your forum.
WTF are you talking about????????????
I'm talking about what you were talking about.
Which didn't make sense.
And now you're trying to blame me for the fact that what you wrote didn't make sense...
Because shill.
You can stick your circular bullshit up yer jeers, dickheads...
I've already won this 'debate' & it's all shits & giggles from now on...
Cope with it.
Oh, & as Deaf Dick just made EIGHT posts in a row to turn the page on this, I'm re-posting it:My videos show no change in weight. Climbing a mountain shows no change in weight. Objects under high pressure don't show a change in weight.
So fucking what you prick?
I said 'altitude', not 'pressure'...
You lying, shitposting gimp.gravitation is still a well known, measurable and predictable phenomenon, regardless of its cause.
Maybe you should tell that to your fuck-buddy sokarul, 'John'?
Seriously; you should both be perma-banned for your bullshit, yet you have been allowed to make over 50,000 posts between you...
FIFTY. FUCKING. THOUSAND!
Not even slightly debatable that this is a shill-run forum.
No doubt whatsoever...
Anyhoo; I will discuss this matter with scepti elsewhere...
This place is fucked.
Fuck off, shills.
Reposting this too, as you are obviously scared of it:Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
Of course, as the jackals here cannot discern between a Law of Motion & a Principle of Reciprocity, I will discuss it with you on your forum.
Reposting this too, as you are obviously scared of it:Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
Of course, as the jackals here cannot discern between a Law of Motion & a Principle of Reciprocity, I will discuss it with you on your forum.
Reposting this too, as you are obviously scared of it:Again, it's already been sorted ages ago.Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
Of course, as the jackals here cannot discern between a Law of Motion & a Principle of Reciprocity, I will discuss it with you on your forum.
Reposting this too, as you are obviously scared of it:Weight is simply a man made measurement of denpressure by the fabrication of a measuring scale.
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
Of course, as the jackals here cannot discern between a Law of Motion & a Principle of Reciprocity, I will discuss it with you on your forum.
Didn't say it hadn't.
Just said the reasons behind it had not...
Which is a very interesting subject; one which you sad-sock freaks are desperate to avoid.
All of which you are fully aware of, but are too sick & ill to admit you fucking psycho...
Here you are again:
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Everybody is laughing at you, Deaf Dick...So when a bird flys, the air is both the action and reaction force, that's not possible, so birds can't fly.
As usual.
Now back to Scientific Truth:What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
No escaping Truth, shills.
Really!You could post evidence.Of course they do. Just remember that weight is merely a man made measurement on a scale and is also subject to pressure change, as you well know.
Objects under less pressure don't weigh less.
At 297 ft under seawater the pressure is 10 x that at sea level (about 147 psi) and open diving bells are used deeper than that!Objects under more pressure don't weigh more. Thus, no denpessure.Of course they do. Just remember that weight is merely a man made measurement on a scale and is also subject to pressure change, as you well know.
I believe he is saying that applying external forces does make CoM wrong.Applying external forces doesn't automatically make something wrong. That's like saying bugatti's are slow because you chained one to a 500 ton Boulder.I don't even know what you're getting at with this bit.
Pay the fuck attention. I wasn't respond to you.My videos show no change in weight. Climbing a mountain shows no change in weight. Objects under high pressure don't show a change in weight.
So fucking what you prick?
I said 'altitude', not 'pressure'...
You lying, shitposting gimp....
Really!You could post evidence.Of course they do. Just remember that weight is merely a man made measurement on a scale and is also subject to pressure change, as you well know.
Objects under less pressure don't weigh less.
Atmospheric pressure on
Mount Everest summit is 4.89 psi and
On Earth sea level is 14.69 psi, so things only ;D weigh one third as much on the top of Everest? ;DQuote from: sceptimaticAt 297 ft under seawater the pressure is 10 x that at sea level (about 147 psi) and open diving bells are used deeper than that!Objects under more pressure don't weigh more. Thus, no denpessure.Of course they do. Just remember that weight is merely a man made measurement on a scale and is also subject to pressure change, as you well know.
;D Are you going to claim that a person weighs 10 times their sea level weigh when working at these depths? ;DQuote from: sceptimaticI believe he is saying that applying external forces does make CoM wrong.Applying external forces doesn't automatically make something wrong. That's like saying bugatti's are slow because you chained one to a 500 ton Boulder.I don't even know what you're getting at with this bit.
You just have to allow for them in you calculations - you know summy sort of thingos that need those awful equations.But, nuff said, surely by now everyone but you can see that ::) denspressure ::) leads to idiotic answers!
Didn't say it hadn't.You did?
Just said the reasons behind it had not...
This comment raises very interesting questions about the connections between Weight, Mass & Gravity, & whether Gravity can even be considered as a 'force', as its relationship to Mass alters with altitude...
Which is a very interesting subject; one which you sad-sock freaks are desperate to avoid.The subject of gravity is quite interesting, but as I already said, the connections between weight, mass and gravity have already been sorted.
All of which you are fully aware of, but are too sick & ill to admit you fucking psycho...
So when a bird flys, the air is both the action and reaction force, that's not possible, so birds can't fly.
You did?
Where?
Sorry Papa you have failed, birds clearly can't fly so you're wrong. Stop using your shills to spread this disinformation.So when a bird flys, the air is both the action and reaction force, that's not possible, so birds can't fly.
LMFAO!!!
STFU sokarul.
So when a bird flys, the air is both the action and reaction force, that's not possible, so birds can't fly.
LMFAO!!!
STFU sokarul.You did?
Where?
I told you John, not on this forum.
I'll discuss it with scepti someplace where the admin (ie. you, 'John Davis') does not openly allow free thinkers to be bullied by sock-puppet shill hordes & admit he refuses to do anything about it.
Now go throw some more fake votes on your fake poll on a fake flat earth forum, 'John'...
Because you've screwed the pooch royally here.
How do you weigh something on top of Everest?
Atmospheric pressure on
Mount Everest summit is 4.89 psi and
On Earth sea level is 14.69 psi, so things only ;D weigh one third as much on the top of Everest? ;D
At 297 ft under seawater the pressure is 10 x that at sea level (about 147 psi) and open diving bells are used deeper than that!How do you weigh someone at those depths?
;D Are you going to claim that a person weighs 10 times their sea level weigh when working at these depths? ;D
Why is that a problem? Surely whether a measurement can be easily be made should not affect the validity of a hypothesis!How do you weigh something on top of Everest?
Atmospheric pressure on
Mount Everest summit is 4.89 psi and
On Earth sea level is 14.69 psi, so things only ;D weigh one third as much on the top of Everest? ;D
Again why is that a problem? Saturation divers commonly work at that depth, so no trouble taking scales (NOT balance type - they compare mass) down in the Diving Bell.At 297 ft under seawater the pressure is 10 x that at sea level (about 147 psi) and open diving bells are used deeper than that!How do you weigh someone at those depths?
;D Are you going to claim that a person weighs 10 times their sea level weigh when working at these depths? ;D
No. Denpressure leads to the truth.surely by now everyone but you can see that ::) denspressure ::) leads to idiotic answers!
You've lost the fake debate on N3 & scepti & I are discussing gravity/denpressure elsewhere, safe from your drunken OCD disruption.
cos I ain't playing.
Having just 1/3 of your weight when you're on top of everest doesn't just affect the number that will show up on a scale. If your weight was just 1/3, you could jump 3 times higher. A climber would be super excited about that fact and would definitely try it. But have you ever seen someone on top of everest skipping around or jumping at fenomenal height? Yeah, me neither.And can you imagine the poor 1,650 lb bloke in the diving bell! I doubt he could breath.
Also, why if you mix water and cooking oil, it will eventually settle with the oil at the top? Why it will never settle with the cooking oil at the bottom? Can you explain that phenomenon with denpressure? I'll assume you can't though, so prove otherwise if that's really not the case.
Mad drunken disinfo-shit from a mad drunken disinfo-shill who talks to his own sock-puppets...
Take your gish-gallop nonsense elsewhere Geoff.Yeah I would hide too if I was you.
You've lost the fake debate on N3 & scepti & I are discussing gravity/denpressure elsewhere, safe from your drunken OCD disruption.
Go troll Sandokhan some more, cos I ain't playing.
Take your gish-gallop nonsense elsewhere Geoff.
You've lost the fake debate on N3 & scepti & I are discussing gravity/denpressure elsewhere, safe from your drunken OCD disruption.
Go troll Sandokhan some more, cos I ain't playing.
"Exhaust stacking"
Lol
Here I am posting mad lies at the exact moment that Legba was writing his post. I can do this because this forum is compromised & I can get away with it because shills run the place.
It's not my fault you cannot comprehend how a gas forms a force-pairing with another gas.But who's fault is it that you cannot comprehend how a gas forms a force-pairing with a rocket engine?
I keep posting hilarious paranoid ramblings and misquoting people because I think it makes me clever, tiddlie boop!
Gased can only form force pairs with others gases, so are birds a gas then in the bird/air pair."Exhaust stacking"
Lol
'Exhaust stacking' was your mental idea, dickhead.
It's not my fault you cannot comprehend how a gas forms a force-pairing with another gas.
Maybe if you actually studied science rather than engaging in all-out war against it you could learn these things?
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Thank you for waitingMad drunken disinfo-shit from a mad drunken disinfo-shill who talks to his own sock-puppets...
STFU Geoff.
It's not my fault you cannot comprehend how a gas forms a force-pairing with another gas.Do you mean that a gas can only form a force-pairing with another gas and not with the body of the rocket.
Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
STFU Geoff.
Anyone who writes shit like this doesn't deserve anything but mockery:Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
You get out by opening a door and becoming free of the building. Because there's just you, you're not going to exert any force against the atmosphere outside and back against the building to effect anything.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
SHIT, I am inside a building, HOW WILL I GET OUT OF IT WITHOUT SOMEHOW FORMING A FORCE PAIRING WITH IT??
You get out by opening a door and becoming free of the building. Because there's just you, you're not going to exert any force against the atmosphere outside and back against the building to effect anything.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
SHIT, I am inside a building, HOW WILL I GET OUT OF IT WITHOUT SOMEHOW FORMING A FORCE PAIRING WITH IT??
Now imagine a billion of you all running for the exit into the street. Sooner or later you will all compress into each other as you gain in spread against the atmosphere, meaning all your compression is pushed back against those coming out of the door.
If the building was on wheels then you would effect a push on it as spread resists the push back.
If you did this vertically, it would be like this.
1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
You lack common reasoning. Your ability to grasp simple analogies is missing. There are quite a few of your type on here.You get out by opening a door and becoming free of the building. Because there's just you, you're not going to exert any force against the atmosphere outside and back against the building to effect anything.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
SHIT, I am inside a building, HOW WILL I GET OUT OF IT WITHOUT SOMEHOW FORMING A FORCE PAIRING WITH IT??
Now imagine a billion of you all running for the exit into the street. Sooner or later you will all compress into each other as you gain in spread against the atmosphere, meaning all your compression is pushed back against those coming out of the door.
If the building was on wheels then you would effect a push on it as spread resists the push back.
If you did this vertically, it would be like this.
I am talking about newton's third law and observable reality, not your fantasy, and definitely not about shitty World War Z.
Close, but not quite.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.Or, F=m(dot)Ve + (pe-p0)Ae if you want to be correct.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.Look who's talking.
You lack common reasoning. Your ability to grasp simple analogies is missing. There are quite a few of your type on here.You get out by opening a door and becoming free of the building. Because there's just you, you're not going to exert any force against the atmosphere outside and back against the building to effect anything.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
SHIT, I am inside a building, HOW WILL I GET OUT OF IT WITHOUT SOMEHOW FORMING A FORCE PAIRING WITH IT??
Now imagine a billion of you all running for the exit into the street. Sooner or later you will all compress into each other as you gain in spread against the atmosphere, meaning all your compression is pushed back against those coming out of the door.
If the building was on wheels then you would effect a push on it as spread resists the push back.
If you did this vertically, it would be like this.
I am talking about newton's third law and observable reality, not your fantasy, and definitely not about shitty World War Z.
1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
Stop talking about your dildo.
A rocket is one object, using internally-stored energy to create a force-pairing with a second, external, object i.e. the atmosphere through which it moves.
All in accordance with Newton's Laws of Motion.
Anyhoo; back to your lying, sock-puppeting & fake poll...
Keep trying to understand things without being under peer pressure of any kind and one day in the future - maybe - you just might get the chance to understand that alternate thoughts make for better understanding when viewed against indoctrinated mainstream theories.You lack common reasoning. Your ability to grasp simple analogies is missing. There are quite a few of your type on here.You get out by opening a door and becoming free of the building. Because there's just you, you're not going to exert any force against the atmosphere outside and back against the building to effect anything.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
SHIT, I am inside a building, HOW WILL I GET OUT OF IT WITHOUT SOMEHOW FORMING A FORCE PAIRING WITH IT??
Now imagine a billion of you all running for the exit into the street. Sooner or later you will all compress into each other as you gain in spread against the atmosphere, meaning all your compression is pushed back against those coming out of the door.
If the building was on wheels then you would effect a push on it as spread resists the push back.
If you did this vertically, it would be like this.
I am talking about newton's third law and observable reality, not your fantasy, and definitely not about shitty World War Z.
No, I got your analogy, it's what you meant that was stupid.
Ok. I am a building, because I am inside a building, and so I can't get out of it, because I can't form a force pairing with it. No need to worry, I got what you meant.
F=PA is a rearrangement of Pressure = Force/Area
F=PA is a derivation of N2 that explains how rockets work.What does F=PA say about the pressure applied to the area of the rest of the rocket engine?
Because they apply pressure to an external object at the area of the exit of the nozzle.
How does an exhaust molecule hitting an atmospheric molecule transfer a force to the rocket? Exhaust stacking?Ok. I am a building, because I am inside a building, and so I can't get out of it, because I can't form a force pairing with it. No need to worry, I got what you meant.
Listen to your mad fucking self.
Fuck off.F=PA is a rearrangement of Pressure = Force/Area
F=PA is a derivation of N2 that explains how rockets work.
Because they apply pressure to an external object at the area of the exit of the nozzle.
And the external object is the atmosphere.
Which is all in accordance with N3.
Unlike your gibberish.
Now you fuck off too, 'John'.
You know, the part of the rocket engine that isn't a hole.
Exhaust stacking?
BTW that's Sceptictank's phrase.
You know, the part of the rocket engine that isn't a hole.
Getting all technical on me. sock-fiddler?
As it goes, your disinfo-pal Geoff once spent ages banging on about how pressure couldn't travel upstream through the throat of a De Laval nozzle...
So if you're gonna start chuntering about your fucking combustion chamber again I suggest you're fucked.Exhaust stacking?
BTW that's Sceptictank's phrase.
Even if that's true, the fact that you are attributing it to me shows what a dishonest scumbag you are.
Plus LOL at you & markjo/'John' coming as a fifty-thousand posts of shite tag-team again, you obvious fucking shill.
Fact is that I know exactly how gasses form force-pairings, but you are so wilfully dogshit dumb that there is no point explaining.
Gasses have mass & anything with mass can force-pair with any other thing with mass; that's all you need to know.
Now fuck off the pair of you.
Keep trying to understand things without being under peer pressure of any kind and one day in the future - maybe - you just might get the chance to understand that alternate thoughts make for better understanding when viewed against indoctrinated mainstream theories.You lack common reasoning. Your ability to grasp simple analogies is missing. There are quite a few of your type on here.You get out by opening a door and becoming free of the building. Because there's just you, you're not going to exert any force against the atmosphere outside and back against the building to effect anything.1) The rocket.
2) The TONS of burnt fuel ejected at 2,000 m/s or more.
Which starts off inside the rocket.
Which makes it one object, using internally stored energy to create a force via F=ma.
Or F=PA if you want to be precise.
Poor drunken Geoff; can't even tell the difference between N2 & N3.
So every time something is inside something else, it's the same object and can never form a force pairing with it?
SHIT, I am inside a building, HOW WILL I GET OUT OF IT WITHOUT SOMEHOW FORMING A FORCE PAIRING WITH IT??
Now imagine a billion of you all running for the exit into the street. Sooner or later you will all compress into each other as you gain in spread against the atmosphere, meaning all your compression is pushed back against those coming out of the door.
If the building was on wheels then you would effect a push on it as spread resists the push back.
If you did this vertically, it would be like this.
I am talking about newton's third law and observable reality, not your fantasy, and definitely not about shitty World War Z.
No, I got your analogy, it's what you meant that was stupid.
Ok. I am a building, because I am inside a building, and so I can't get out of it, because I can't form a force pairing with it. No need to worry, I got what you meant.
Listen to your mad fucking self.
Fuck off.F=PA is a rearrangement of Pressure = Force/Area
F=PA is a derivation of N2 that explains how rockets work.
Because they apply pressure to an external object at the area of the exit of the nozzle.
And the external object is the atmosphere.
Which is all in accordance with N3.
Unlike your gibberish.
Now you fuck off too, 'John'.
Gasses have mass & anything with mass can force-pair with any other thing with mass; that's all you need to know.
Glad to see you're a mad shitposting psycho who just made three mad psycho shitposts in a row for no reason & believes an object can create a force-pairing with itself which results in motion.
Now fuck off.
You too socky-boy.
Yes, rocket science is a very technical subject.You know, the part of the rocket engine that isn't a hole.
Getting all technical on me. sock-fiddler?
As it goes, your disinfo-pal Geoff once spent ages banging on about how pressure couldn't travel upstream through the throat of a De Laval nozzle...What does that have to do with your interpretation of F=PA? ???
So if you're gonna start chuntering about your fucking combustion chamber again I suggest you're fucked.I'll give your suggestion the consideration that it's due.
Seems we didn't even get that from him.Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Never ask sceptimatic these questions. He won't properly answer, he's simply going to throw some fake jargon, say that we're all brainwashed and like star trek, and then offer an explanation that more or less boils down to "it's explained, somehow".
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Can you get a message to Papa?As it goes, your disinfo-pal Geoff once spent ages banging on about how pressure couldn't travel upstream through the throat of a De Laval nozzle...
However, you do appear to be trying to sneak in the concept that a single object creating a force, which fulfils the dictates of N2 only, somehow also fulfils the dictates of N3...A expanding gaseous exhaust stream and a metal rocket engine sure sound like 2 different objects to me.
I've no idea what you're all getting at here now...
Just time-wasting bullshit I guess?
However, you do appear to be trying to sneak in the concept that a single object creating a force, which fulfils the dictates of N2 only, somehow also fulfils the dictates of N3...
You always do this btw.
Because shills.
Read again, shills:What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Still waiting, how does one molecule hitting another one transfer a force to the rocket?
A expanding gaseous exhaust stream and a metal rocket engine sure sound like 2 different objects to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics)I can't see this helping because I don't think Papa "does" reading (at least he takes no notice of it) and Sceptimatic doesn't "do" equations.
, so it's still just conker/frenat/fuckyfredgot any evidence of that assertion? I have only one account.
Musta killed you having to wait a full 15 minutes before replying, eh, fuckyfred?Wasn't luckyfred, this one was me. You know the poster's name is on each post, right? Maybe that's where you're getting confused? And i just got up so I just saw the post with the false accusation and didn't wait at all. Feel free to prove otherwise. But I know you won't because I only have, and have only ever had, one account.
You know, so you don't look like the mad stalking gaylord shill everybody knows you are?Says the guy who was stalking me on my youtube channel. Hypocrite much?
So you're saying that 2 different materials in 2 different phases of matter are the same object?A expanding gaseous exhaust stream and a metal rocket engine sure sound like 2 different objects to me.
Nah they don't.
A rocket is one object & gas does no work in a vacuum.No wonder these discussion never go anywhere.
...Still waiting for you to explain it to us.
It's not my fault you cannot comprehend how a gas forms a force-pairing with another gas.
Maybe if you actually studied science rather than engaging in all-out war against it you could learn these things?
But meh; keep up your bullshit...
...
You are mistaking me for someone who gives a fuck about your bullshit opinion & does not recognise you for what you are...A rocket engine and exhaust gasses being 2 different objects that force pair with each other is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple statement of fact that you just can't comprehend.
NO YOU!!I figured as much.
So metal is a gas then, you learn something new everyday.A expanding gaseous exhaust stream and a metal rocket engine sure sound like 2 different objects to me.
Nah they don't.
You know damn well that N2 isn't N3.
You're just another paid liar.
Papa Legba, no one forces you to answer to anyone. If you are so angry about being answered to on the internet, block, and walk away from the computer. There is no "leave me alone" on a public discussion. We are showing you the door. It's usually on your screen's top right cornerI've found the power switch on the wall even more effective!
If only you would put as much effort into posting sources that support your arguments.Don't be silly! How can he post that spaghetti that passes for his brain.
I can't believe you idiots are still arguing the same point that you have been arguing for over 200 pages spanning 3 different threads! You guys are a glutton for punishment.And he DID!
As usual, the thread generates a bunch of complaints clogging up my email and devolves into name calling and spam.
So, as usual:
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
If only you would put as much effort into posting sources that support your arguments.Don't be silly! How can he post that spaghetti that passes for his brain.
I have wondered why the administrators let these silly Legbaresque threads continue (not that it started that way),
but they obviously think it keeps all the Globe supporters from posting anti-Flatist arguments.
There used to be an administrator, "TheEngineer", who got jack of some of these silly Legba tactics and posted:
Re: IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, THE FUEL IS OBJECT B « Reply #939 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:38 AM »Quote from: TheEngineerI can't believe you idiots are still arguing the same point that you have been arguing for over 200 pages spanning 3 different threads! You guys are a glutton for punishment.And he DID!
As usual, the thread generates a bunch of complaints clogging up my email and devolves into name calling and spam.
So, as usual:
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
And he did it again on another silly Legba ruined thread!
Re: People on skateboards. « Reply #2256 on: January 12, 2016, 07:10:31 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.msg1748473#msg1748473)Help! Where's TheEngineer when we need him!
You people keep saying it but can't resist taking him on and getting spanked.If only you would put as much effort into posting sources that support your arguments.Don't be silly! How can he post that spaghetti that passes for his brain.
I have wondered why the administrators let these silly Legbaresque threads continue (not that it started that way),
but they obviously think it keeps all the Globe supporters from posting anti-Flatist arguments.
There used to be an administrator, "TheEngineer", who got jack of some of these silly Legba tactics and posted:
Re: IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, THE FUEL IS OBJECT B « Reply #939 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:38 AM »Quote from: TheEngineerI can't believe you idiots are still arguing the same point that you have been arguing for over 200 pages spanning 3 different threads! You guys are a glutton for punishment.And he DID!
As usual, the thread generates a bunch of complaints clogging up my email and devolves into name calling and spam.
So, as usual:
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
And he did it again on another silly Legba ruined thread!
Re: People on skateboards. « Reply #2256 on: January 12, 2016, 07:10:31 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.msg1748473#msg1748473)Help! Where's TheEngineer when we need him!
Seems like it'd be easier to just block Pepe, but I shouldn't try to rationalize flat earthers, should I?
Lame post is lame.You people keep saying it but can't resist taking him on and getting spanked.If only you would put as much effort into posting sources that support your arguments.Don't be silly! How can he post that spaghetti that passes for his brain.
I have wondered why the administrators let these silly Legbaresque threads continue (not that it started that way),
but they obviously think it keeps all the Globe supporters from posting anti-Flatist arguments.
There used to be an administrator, "TheEngineer", who got jack of some of these silly Legba tactics and posted:
Re: IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, THE FUEL IS OBJECT B « Reply #939 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:38 AM »Quote from: TheEngineerI can't believe you idiots are still arguing the same point that you have been arguing for over 200 pages spanning 3 different threads! You guys are a glutton for punishment.And he DID!
As usual, the thread generates a bunch of complaints clogging up my email and devolves into name calling and spam.
So, as usual:
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
And he did it again on another silly Legba ruined thread!
Re: People on skateboards. « Reply #2256 on: January 12, 2016, 07:10:31 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.msg1748473#msg1748473)Help! Where's TheEngineer when we need him!
Seems like it'd be easier to just block Pepe, but I shouldn't try to rationalize flat earthers, should I?
Stop whining about him and address what he's saying without crying.
You people keep saying it but can't resist taking him on and getting spanked.If only you would put as much effort into posting sources that support your arguments.Don't be silly! How can he post that spaghetti that passes for his brain.
I have wondered why the administrators let these silly Legbaresque threads continue (not that it started that way),
but they obviously think it keeps all the Globe supporters from posting anti-Flatist arguments.
There used to be an administrator, "TheEngineer", who got jack of some of these silly Legba tactics and posted:
Re: IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, THE FUEL IS OBJECT B « Reply #939 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:38 AM »Quote from: TheEngineerI can't believe you idiots are still arguing the same point that you have been arguing for over 200 pages spanning 3 different threads! You guys are a glutton for punishment.And he DID!
As usual, the thread generates a bunch of complaints clogging up my email and devolves into name calling and spam.
So, as usual:
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
And he did it again on another silly Legba ruined thread!
Re: People on skateboards. « Reply #2256 on: January 12, 2016, 07:10:31 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.msg1748473#msg1748473)Help! Where's TheEngineer when we need him!
Seems like it'd be easier to just block Pepe, but I shouldn't try to rationalize flat earthers, should I?
Stop whining about him and address what he's saying without crying.
He pastes what proof he has rather than continually go through it all step by step to people like you who are close to brain dead and act like what fictional zombies appear like.Lame post is lame.You people keep saying it but can't resist taking him on and getting spanked.If only you would put as much effort into posting sources that support your arguments.Don't be silly! How can he post that spaghetti that passes for his brain.
I have wondered why the administrators let these silly Legbaresque threads continue (not that it started that way),
but they obviously think it keeps all the Globe supporters from posting anti-Flatist arguments.
There used to be an administrator, "TheEngineer", who got jack of some of these silly Legba tactics and posted:
Re: IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, THE FUEL IS OBJECT B « Reply #939 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:38 AM »Quote from: TheEngineerI can't believe you idiots are still arguing the same point that you have been arguing for over 200 pages spanning 3 different threads! You guys are a glutton for punishment.And he DID!
As usual, the thread generates a bunch of complaints clogging up my email and devolves into name calling and spam.
So, as usual:
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
And he did it again on another silly Legba ruined thread!
Re: People on skateboards. « Reply #2256 on: January 12, 2016, 07:10:31 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.msg1748473#msg1748473)Help! Where's TheEngineer when we need him!
Seems like it'd be easier to just block Pepe, but I shouldn't try to rationalize flat earthers, should I?
Stop whining about him and address what he's saying without crying.
We destroy all his posts. He doesn't even try to back up his claims anymore since he knows he is going to get bent over.
No Scepti, you are devoid of reasoning. The only reason you have for believing anything is "It's not mainstream and it's pulled out of MY ass, so it's right.".Like I said, you people are beyond reasoning. You'll never understand anything with the petulant child like sokarul like attitude.
No Scepti, you are devoid of reasoning. The only reason you have for believing anything is "It's not mainstream and it's pulled out of MY ass, so it's right.".Like I said, you people are beyond reasoning. You'll never understand anything with the petulant child like sokarul like attitude.
If you used your brain you would see that I'm trying to help people like you banish the naivety you happily stuck to and still do. I try to help you by getting you to use your logical sense and start from the basics.No Scepti, you are devoid of reasoning. The only reason you have for believing anything is "It's not mainstream and it's pulled out of MY ass, so it's right.".Like I said, you people are beyond reasoning. You'll never understand anything with the petulant child like sokarul like attitude.
It's really funny when such an ignorant and stubborn person who constantly asks for simplified explanations of simplifications of explanations easy enough for a child in sixth grade to understand, and then closes his ears going "lalala, I can't hear you!" whenever he is proven wrong calls my attitude child like. It means I am doing something right.
If you used your brain you would see that I'm trying to help people like you banish the naivety you happily stuck to and still do. I try to help you by getting you to use your logical sense and start from the basics.No Scepti, you are devoid of reasoning. The only reason you have for believing anything is "It's not mainstream and it's pulled out of MY ass, so it's right.".Like I said, you people are beyond reasoning. You'll never understand anything with the petulant child like sokarul like attitude.
It's really funny when such an ignorant and stubborn person who constantly asks for simplified explanations of simplifications of explanations easy enough for a child in sixth grade to understand, and then closes his ears going "lalala, I can't hear you!" whenever he is proven wrong calls my attitude child like. It means I am doing something right.
This means you need to always use basics when trying to figure things out, because everything starts out as basic.
You're like a drug addict in therapy. You're getting told that your drugs is addling your brain and damping your senses because you have become seriously reliant on it.
I try to wean you off but am met with a fierce resistance and the argument that you don't want to because it makes you feel good to be on it and makes you feel ill if you try to come down from it.
It'll take time to wean you off the nonsense that was placed into your nut, if you are strong enough to realise you are under severe peer pressure of society who think for you. All you need to do is take it one step at a time and secure your territory. Secure your turf that only those who secure theirs are allowed to step on, when invited.
You don't step on mine until you prove you're capable of using your brain, for you. For you. FOR YOU.
Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.If you used your brain you would see that I'm trying to help people like you banish the naivety you happily stuck to and still do. I try to help you by getting you to use your logical sense and start from the basics.No Scepti, you are devoid of reasoning. The only reason you have for believing anything is "It's not mainstream and it's pulled out of MY ass, so it's right.".Like I said, you people are beyond reasoning. You'll never understand anything with the petulant child like sokarul like attitude.
It's really funny when such an ignorant and stubborn person who constantly asks for simplified explanations of simplifications of explanations easy enough for a child in sixth grade to understand, and then closes his ears going "lalala, I can't hear you!" whenever he is proven wrong calls my attitude child like. It means I am doing something right.
This means you need to always use basics when trying to figure things out, because everything starts out as basic.
You're like a drug addict in therapy. You're getting told that your drugs is addling your brain and damping your senses because you have become seriously reliant on it.
I try to wean you off but am met with a fierce resistance and the argument that you don't want to because it makes you feel good to be on it and makes you feel ill if you try to come down from it.
It'll take time to wean you off the nonsense that was placed into your nut, if you are strong enough to realise you are under severe peer pressure of society who think for you. All you need to do is take it one step at a time and secure your territory. Secure your turf that only those who secure theirs are allowed to step on, when invited.
You don't step on mine until you prove you're capable of using your brain, for you. For you. FOR YOU.
It scares me to think you actually believe this shit. There's a place for it, the nut house. I'm sure you'd be considered a great authority in there, but please keep this out of the real world. Anyone can see you're wrong, the problem is that for some reason YOU can't see you're wrong, you're INCAPABLE of seeing you are wrong. Sorry, I can't help with that, I've tried but nothing happens.
And please, shut up about society. Are you some sort of super-hipster? Why do you throw out all sense, logic and reason for the sake of being a contrarian? Is it because you fail to understand any sort of logic, but can't stand the idea of you being dumb?
Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
That depends on what you deem as standard against non-standard.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
That depends on what you deem as standard against non-standard.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
Because all the mainsteam books indoctrinate you to believe running into walls will harm you.That depends on what you deem as standard against non-standard.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
Standard logical reasoning: There's a wall in front of me, if I run head on into it, it will be very painful.
Sceptimatic's version of logical reasoning: There's a wall in front of me, RUNNING INTO IT WILL HEAL ME, HERE I COME!!!!
Because all the mainsteam books indoctrinate you to believe running into walls will harm you.That depends on what you deem as standard against non-standard.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
Standard logical reasoning: There's a wall in front of me, if I run head on into it, it will be very painful.
Sceptimatic's version of logical reasoning: There's a wall in front of me, RUNNING INTO IT WILL HEAL ME, HERE I COME!!!!
Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
You think a rocket is two objects & it's possible to push on nothing, 'John'.
That's not 'non-standard', that's just plain mental.
Also, you seem to have given up discussing N3 completely & gone for all-out brainwashing instead...
He thinks the rocket is one body, the fuel is another (it's actually many bodies together, but can be considered as one), and the rocket pushes on the fuel. That's the last time I will explain it, if you don't get it I don't care.
He thinks the rocket is one body, the fuel is another (it's actually many bodies together, but can be considered as one), and the rocket pushes on the fuel. That's the last time I will explain it, if you don't get it I don't care.
In that case the rocket cannot push on the fuel, as the fuel is part of the rocket itself.
You contradict yourselves yet again.
Perhaps if you actually read this you would cease your circular madness:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
He thinks the rocket is one body, the fuel is another (it's actually many bodies together, but can be considered as one), and the rocket pushes on the fuel. That's the last time I will explain it, if you don't get it I don't care.
In that case the rocket cannot push on the fuel, as the fuel is part of the rocket itself.
You contradict yourselves yet again.
Here is N3 for non-retards:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
You need to get right back to basics and understand that no matter how many times you try to push yourself over by pushing against your own chest, you will never do it.Here is N3 for non-retards:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Please explain why you always omit this bit:Quote2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Then the answer:QuoteCheck your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.Guess that bit doesn't fit with the inFamous PuppiMatic Fiziks!
Have a nice day!
But please in future read all of your reference material!
Please explain why... blah, drone, lie, snore, waffle, lie some more, repetitive sock-puppeted bullshit, etc...
This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense!
No, no and no.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
You think a rocket is two objects & it's possible to push on nothing, 'John'.
You talk about the "dense atmosphere"!
You need to understand that a rocket is a sealed object and cannot move itself through atmosphere or your space by being a sealed object, because that rocket at that time is ONE object carrying everything it needs to vertically lift off.
It cannot lift off unless it releases its fuel by opening valves to allow it to escape from the rear nozzle. The fact that this burning fuel comes into contact with dense atmosphere from which the burning fuel is expanded into, is the reason why the rocket can be raised.
In your space, you have nothing for the burning fuel to expand against. It flows one way and one way only once you give it an outlet.
If you block that outlet, then the burning fuel becomes unburned fuel and sits inside the rocket under pressure by equalising in its tank, assuming a pressurised fuel.
Its so basic.
No, no and no.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
You think a rocket is two objects & it's possible to push on nothing, 'John'.
How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
The rocket engine and the expanding combustion gasses form a force pair.
I'm not John.
If you think that a gas, a liquid and a solid are the same object, then you are the one who is mental.
You need to get right back to basics and understand that no matter how many times you try to push yourself over by pushing against your own chest, you will never do it.Here is N3 for non-retards:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Please explain why you always omit this bit:Quote2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Then the answer:QuoteCheck your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.Guess that bit doesn't fit with the inFamous PuppiMatic Fiziks!
Have a nice day!
But please in future read all of your reference material!
You need to understand that the force of your arms cannot pick up your own legs and hold them in the air.
You need to understand that a rocket is a sealed object and cannot move itself through atmosphere or your space by being a sealed object, because that rocket at that time is ONE object carrying everything it needs to vertically lift off.
It cannot lift off unless it releases its fuel by opening valves to allow it to escape from the rear nozzle. The fact that this burning fuel comes into contact with dense atmosphere from which the burning fuel is expanded into, is the reason why the rocket can be raised.
In your space, you have nothing for the burning fuel to expand against. It flows one way and one way only once you give it an outlet.
If you block that outlet, then the burning fuel becomes unburned fuel and sits inside the rocket under pressure by equalising in its tank, assuming a pressurised fuel.
Its so basic.
Like the example of a person on a skateboard throwing a heavy ball.
How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
at the Kármán line, where Papa assures rockets operate to
Like the example of a person on a skateboard throwing a heavy ball.
The man's arms EXPAND against the EXTERNAL MASS of the ball in the same way the rocket exhaust EXPANDS against the EXTERNAL MASS of the atmosphere.
Simple to understand, & all in accord with N3 (remember N3, retard?).
Of course, you will now pretend you do not understand & spam me with more gibberish...
lol.How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
I'm not an expert on brainwashing, but I reckon you'll need to keep it up a good while longer cos a rocket, whether fuelled or un-fuelled, is clearly ONE object to every non-blind individual.at the Kármán line, where Papa assures rockets operate to
Never said that, mad lying old piss-head; I said no rocket could ever pass the Karman Line.
I never stated what altitude thrust would fail at though.
I refuse to believe you are as backward are you're making out. It's got to be deliberate.You talk about the "dense atmosphere"!
You need to understand that a rocket is a sealed object and cannot move itself through atmosphere or your space by being a sealed object, because that rocket at that time is ONE object carrying everything it needs to vertically lift off.
It cannot lift off unless it releases its fuel by opening valves to allow it to escape from the rear nozzle. The fact that this burning fuel comes into contact with dense atmosphere from which the burning fuel is expanded into, is the reason why the rocket can be raised.
In your space, you have nothing for the burning fuel to expand against. It flows one way and one way only once you give it an outlet.
If you block that outlet, then the burning fuel becomes unburned fuel and sits inside the rocket under pressure by equalising in its tank, assuming a pressurised fuel.
Its so basic.;D ;D ;D Dense atmosphere up at the Kármán line, where Papa assures rockets operate to! ;D ;D ;D
And ;) Papa Legba would never lie, would he ;)!
You're denser that your Spaghetti Brained Twin Papimatic!
You can't count any better than your mate in the kindergarten, Papa!
Rocket Body (+unburnt fuel) = ONE OBJECT.
Fuel being ejected = ONE OBJECT
ONE OBJECT + ONE OBJECT = TWO OBJECTSGo stand at the blackboard and write it out a THOUSAND TIMES! 1+1=2, 1+1=2, 1+1=1, oops, start over again!
One rocket plus all its components and fuel is one object against the atmosphere. Once that rocket opens up it's fuel to burn, it does so because of the atmosphere, which is external to that rocket.No, no and no.Like I said earlier. You people are incapable of logical reasoning.You seem to have a rather non-standard definition of "logical reasoning".
You think a rocket is two objects & it's possible to push on nothing, 'John'.
How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
The rocket engine and the expanding combustion gasses form a force pair.
I'm not John.
If you think that a gas, a liquid and a solid are the same object, then you are the one who is mental.
I tried telling his mad mate SceptiBa (or was it PapiMatic?) that!
He can't count either, so I set him some advanced arithmetic to practice up on, you know 1+1 = 2; 1+1 = 2; 1+1=2;
But he keeps stumbling and reverting to 1+1 = 1; 1+1 = 1;Do you know any places that offer remedial kindergarten teaching?
Do you have some sort of reading and/or comprehension disability that we should know about?How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
I'm not an expert on brainwashing, but I reckon you'll need to keep it up a good while longer cos a rocket, whether fuelled or un-fuelled, is clearly ONE object to every non-blind individual.
I think its you and other that have the problem.Do you have some sort of reading and/or comprehension disability that we should know about?How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
I'm not an expert on brainwashing, but I reckon you'll need to keep it up a good while longer cos a rocket, whether fuelled or un-fuelled, is clearly ONE object to every non-blind individual.
You seem to think that a rocket and a rocket engine are the same thing.
I'll give you a hint.
One is a part of the other.
You know, like an automobile engine is a part of an automobile.
Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
I think its you and other that have the problem.Do you have some sort of reading and/or comprehension disability that we should know about?How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
I'm not an expert on brainwashing, but I reckon you'll need to keep it up a good while longer cos a rocket, whether fuelled or un-fuelled, is clearly ONE object to every non-blind individual.
You seem to think that a rocket and a rocket engine are the same thing.
I'll give you a hint.
One is a part of the other.
You know, like an automobile engine is a part of an automobile.
A car is made up of many parts including a tank of fuel and a sump of oil, plus a radiator of water and so on. It is a car, not cars.
When it goes down the road under power, it is still a car but in order for it to move using its INTERNAL combustion engine, it requires atmosphere.
Instead of using the external atmosphere to operate the car, we will use a compressed air tank to mix with the fuel, similar to your rockets.
Let's forget that the radiator would need to cool the engine and just concentrate on the actual fuel.
Ok, now we have the car underway and it's exhaust allowing the SPENT fuel to exit the car, similar to how you clowns say your rocket works in atmosphere or your space.
Now here's where the problem starts, for you lot.
The car has played one action/reaction internally to allow the engine to work and turn the WHEELS.
The Wheels are your second action/reaction with the road.
Grasp it yet?
Ok, let some thieves steal your wheels and stand your car on bricks. Now off you go down the road.
What do you mean your car is useless because the wheels don't touch the road and your exhaust is useless.
Let's place your rocket on the road and onto the same bricks. Now off you go. What happens?
Yep, you take off like a bat out of hell, but why...there were no wheels on your rocket.
It's because your rocket mixed its fuel with the compressed air or oxygen or hydrogen or whatever you want.
The resulting burn into the atmosphere creates the action/reaction sequence that propels your rocket.
Try that in your space road on bricks and your rocket remains on the bricks spewing its fuel load out against?...against?....NOTHING. No resistance.
Cars on roads in atmosphere. Thumbs up.
Jets and rockets burning fuel in atmosphere for propulsion, thumbs up.
Rockets, jets and cars in what we are told, is space. THUMBS DOWN. IT JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN PEOPLE.
Why are you so embarrassed by your past claims?Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
Anymore of this and I'll be forced to tell your boss, who will then sack you and bring in a kid on the same minimum wage, who will turn out to be conscientious.
One day when you can think for yourself and don't need the back up of your like-minded peers, things will actually make sense to you.I think its you and other that have the problem.Do you have some sort of reading and/or comprehension disability that we should know about?How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
I'm not an expert on brainwashing, but I reckon you'll need to keep it up a good while longer cos a rocket, whether fuelled or un-fuelled, is clearly ONE object to every non-blind individual.
You seem to think that a rocket and a rocket engine are the same thing.
I'll give you a hint.
One is a part of the other.
You know, like an automobile engine is a part of an automobile.
A car is made up of many parts including a tank of fuel and a sump of oil, plus a radiator of water and so on. It is a car, not cars.
When it goes down the road under power, it is still a car but in order for it to move using its INTERNAL combustion engine, it requires atmosphere.
Instead of using the external atmosphere to operate the car, we will use a compressed air tank to mix with the fuel, similar to your rockets.
Let's forget that the radiator would need to cool the engine and just concentrate on the actual fuel.
Ok, now we have the car underway and it's exhaust allowing the SPENT fuel to exit the car, similar to how you clowns say your rocket works in atmosphere or your space.
Now here's where the problem starts, for you lot.
The car has played one action/reaction internally to allow the engine to work and turn the WHEELS.
The Wheels are your second action/reaction with the road.
Grasp it yet?
Ok, let some thieves steal your wheels and stand your car on bricks. Now off you go down the road.
What do you mean your car is useless because the wheels don't touch the road and your exhaust is useless.
Let's place your rocket on the road and onto the same bricks. Now off you go. What happens?
Yep, you take off like a bat out of hell, but why...there were no wheels on your rocket.
It's because your rocket mixed its fuel with the compressed air or oxygen or hydrogen or whatever you want.
The resulting burn into the atmosphere creates the action/reaction sequence that propels your rocket.
Try that in your space road on bricks and your rocket remains on the bricks spewing its fuel load out against?...against?....NOTHING. No resistance.
Cars on roads in atmosphere. Thumbs up.
Jets and rockets burning fuel in atmosphere for propulsion, thumbs up.
Rockets, jets and cars in what we are told, is space. THUMBS DOWN. IT JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN PEOPLE.
This has to be the most insane thing I've read all month, in so many levels. Congratulations.
Just remember what I said. Take heed and keep your job. There's nothing wrong with being a counter assistant.Why are you so embarrassed by your past claims?Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
Anymore of this and I'll be forced to tell your boss, who will then sack you and bring in a kid on the same minimum wage, who will turn out to be conscientious.
While I'm not a pretend millionaire, I do make more than minimum wage. Comes with the degree. Not everyone hates schools like you do.
I'm not stupid enough to smoke.
So fucking what?How many objects is a car?
You just refuse to understand this, don't you?
Even though the quote I cite mentions a car at the end...
You shouldn't talk about stuff you know nothing about. Sorry I am a real scientist. Just get a science degree and you can get paid to be one too. Not hard.Just remember what I said. Take heed and keep your job. There's nothing wrong with being a counter assistant.Why are you so embarrassed by your past claims?Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
Anymore of this and I'll be forced to tell your boss, who will then sack you and bring in a kid on the same minimum wage, who will turn out to be conscientious.
While I'm not a pretend millionaire, I do make more than minimum wage. Comes with the degree. Not everyone hates schools like you do.
I'm not stupid enough to smoke.
Work time for serving and i-phone? for leisure time, unless an emergency situation presents itself.
I'm trying to help you even though I hate your hair.
I'll leave that with you. I won't spoil your fantasy life as a scientist. You enjoy your little daydreaming, kid.You shouldn't talk about stuff you know nothing about. Sorry I am a real scientist. Just get a science degree and you can get paid to be one too. Not hard.Just remember what I said. Take heed and keep your job. There's nothing wrong with being a counter assistant.Why are you so embarrassed by your past claims?Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
Anymore of this and I'll be forced to tell your boss, who will then sack you and bring in a kid on the same minimum wage, who will turn out to be conscientious.
While I'm not a pretend millionaire, I do make more than minimum wage. Comes with the degree. Not everyone hates schools like you do.
I'm not stupid enough to smoke.
Work time for serving and i-phone? for leisure time, unless an emergency situation presents itself.
I'm trying to help you even though I hate your hair.
So fucking what?If I take the engine out of the car, how energetically are the wheels going to spin?
You just refuse to understand this, don't you?
Even though the quote I cite mentions a car at the end...
That sounds funny coming from someone who's life sucks so much they made up a story about being a millionaire inventor North Korean defector.I'll leave that with you. I won't spoil your fantasy life as a scientist. You enjoy your little daydreaming, kid.You shouldn't talk about stuff you know nothing about. Sorry I am a real scientist. Just get a science degree and you can get paid to be one too. Not hard.Just remember what I said. Take heed and keep your job. There's nothing wrong with being a counter assistant.Why are you so embarrassed by your past claims?Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
Anymore of this and I'll be forced to tell your boss, who will then sack you and bring in a kid on the same minimum wage, who will turn out to be conscientious.
While I'm not a pretend millionaire, I do make more than minimum wage. Comes with the degree. Not everyone hates schools like you do.
I'm not stupid enough to smoke.
Work time for serving and i-phone? for leisure time, unless an emergency situation presents itself.
I'm trying to help you even though I hate your hair.
You're a special kind of kid. :P
Just trying to point out the difference between a rocket and a rocket engine using a car and its engine as an analogy.So fucking what?If I take the engine out of the car, how energetically are the wheels going to spin?
You just refuse to understand this, don't you?
Even though the quote I cite mentions a car at the end...
LMFAO!!!
So if you break a car & it doesn't work therefore shpayze-rokkitz iz reel?
The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.Just trying to point out the difference between a rocket and a rocket engine using a car and its engine as an analogy.So fucking what?If I take the engine out of the car, how energetically are the wheels going to spin?
You just refuse to understand this, don't you?
Even though the quote I cite mentions a car at the end...
LMFAO!!!
So if you break a car & it doesn't work therefore shpayze-rokkitz iz reel?
But obviously you still refuse to get it.
The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
One day when you can think for yourself and don't need the back up of your like-minded peers, things will actually make sense to you.I think its you and other that have the problem.Do you have some sort of reading and/or comprehension disability that we should know about?How many times must I say it before it penetrates?
A rocket engine and propellant are two objects.
I'm not an expert on brainwashing, but I reckon you'll need to keep it up a good while longer cos a rocket, whether fuelled or un-fuelled, is clearly ONE object to every non-blind individual.
You seem to think that a rocket and a rocket engine are the same thing.
I'll give you a hint.
One is a part of the other.
You know, like an automobile engine is a part of an automobile.
A car is made up of many parts including a tank of fuel and a sump of oil, plus a radiator of water and so on. It is a car, not cars.
When it goes down the road under power, it is still a car but in order for it to move using its INTERNAL combustion engine, it requires atmosphere.
Instead of using the external atmosphere to operate the car, we will use a compressed air tank to mix with the fuel, similar to your rockets.
Let's forget that the radiator would need to cool the engine and just concentrate on the actual fuel.
Ok, now we have the car underway and it's exhaust allowing the SPENT fuel to exit the car, similar to how you clowns say your rocket works in atmosphere or your space.
Now here's where the problem starts, for you lot.
The car has played one action/reaction internally to allow the engine to work and turn the WHEELS.
The Wheels are your second action/reaction with the road.
Grasp it yet?
Ok, let some thieves steal your wheels and stand your car on bricks. Now off you go down the road.
What do you mean your car is useless because the wheels don't touch the road and your exhaust is useless.
Let's place your rocket on the road and onto the same bricks. Now off you go. What happens?
Yep, you take off like a bat out of hell, but why...there were no wheels on your rocket.
It's because your rocket mixed its fuel with the compressed air or oxygen or hydrogen or whatever you want.
The resulting burn into the atmosphere creates the action/reaction sequence that propels your rocket.
Try that in your space road on bricks and your rocket remains on the bricks spewing its fuel load out against?...against?....NOTHING. No resistance.
Cars on roads in atmosphere. Thumbs up.
Jets and rockets burning fuel in atmosphere for propulsion, thumbs up.
Rockets, jets and cars in what we are told, is space. THUMBS DOWN. IT JUST ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN PEOPLE.
This has to be the most insane thing I've read all month, in so many levels. Congratulations.
I certainly wouldn't hold my breath with you but there's always hope for you if you are willing to man up.
No response Sceptictank?That sounds funny coming from someone who's life sucks so much they made up a story about being a millionaire inventor North Korean defector.I'll leave that with you. I won't spoil your fantasy life as a scientist. You enjoy your little daydreaming, kid.You shouldn't talk about stuff you know nothing about. Sorry I am a real scientist. Just get a science degree and you can get paid to be one too. Not hard.Just remember what I said. Take heed and keep your job. There's nothing wrong with being a counter assistant.Why are you so embarrassed by your past claims?Object B is the exhaust.Off you go, away from here. You're a counter assistant in a chemists shop serving embarrassed youths with condoms and creams. Do your job properly and only use your phone when you're on a smoke break or a legitimate lunch break.
" exhaust stacking"
Lol
Anymore of this and I'll be forced to tell your boss, who will then sack you and bring in a kid on the same minimum wage, who will turn out to be conscientious.
While I'm not a pretend millionaire, I do make more than minimum wage. Comes with the degree. Not everyone hates schools like you do.
I'm not stupid enough to smoke.
Work time for serving and i-phone? for leisure time, unless an emergency situation presents itself.
I'm trying to help you even though I hate your hair.
You're a special kind of kid. :P
Empirical: Cut a hole in the back of your egg & see what happens when you spin it, psycho.What is this "experiment" ment to prove.
I just want to punch you in the face whenever you bring up that "One day you will learn to understand" trope.
It's like the rocket carries a wall with it, and pushes against it to propel itself
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)I just want to punch you in the face whenever you bring up that "One day you will learn to understand" trope.
Lol dickhead.QuoteIt's like the rocket carries a wall with it, and pushes against it to propel itself
Think about what you just wrote.
If the rocket carries a wall with it then the wall would be part of the rocket; pushing against it would then be as much use as me pushing myself under my own chin & hoping to fly.
And if the fuel were the wall, then by what means could the wall be pushed against, as it is the expansion of the combusting fuel that provides that very push in the first place?
But according to you the fuel is the wall; does this wall somehow push against itself?
The continuum hypothesis is basically an approximation, in the same way planets are approximated by point particles when dealing with celestial mechanics, and therefore results in approximate solutions. Consequently, assumption of the continuum hypothesis can lead to results which are not of desired accuracy. However, under the right circumstances, the continuum hypothesis produces extremely accurate results.So your saying that rockets can't moved based of an assumption which is wrong, but is still used to make calculations easier, lol.
So your saying that rockets can't moved based of an assumption which is wrong
From my original quoteSo your saying that rockets can't moved based of an assumption which is wrongEven wikipedia doesn't say the continuum assumption is wrong you lying fucking retard; in fact it's the only way to get any useful results from any kind of model in fluid mechanics.
The continuum hypothesis is basically an approximation, in the same way planets are approximated by point particles when dealing with celestial mechanics, and therefore results in approximate solutions. Consequently, assumption of the continuum hypothesis can lead to results which are not of desired accuracy. However, under the right circumstances, the continuum hypothesis produces extremely accurate results.Look at the bolded part, do you know what an approximation is?
an amount, figure, etc., that is almost correct and is not intended to be exact : an approximate amount, figure, etc.Big difference between almost correct and correct.
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway
Here is more information on the subject:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
Massive lies from a sock-puppet.
More massive lies from another sock-puppet.
Here's the 'launch sequence' from the low-budget sci-fi film 'Europa Report'; it's just as convincing as your 'Delta Heavy' bullshit but didn't cost the taxpayer $billions:
You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere. What force pairs with the rocket engine?The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
Stop replying to them, they will never learn.
Is there anything else to discuss? I put up the equation for rocket thrust which answered pretty much all of their questions.
Is there anything else to discuss? I put up the equation for rocket thrust which answered pretty much all of their questions.
They don't math very hard. At all. And they don't want to. They seem not to even care that it might help them better understand how the world around them works. Nor will they trust or even listen to someone that does. They simply won't get it. But you can rest assured that they will continue to post. Quite a bit. It's a parade of committed, willful ignorance.
But it's nice that you tried.
That seems to be the case. It seems that a lack of understanding the mathematical underpinnings of physics plagues this forum. While I won't generalize and underestimate how well this entire forum understands that math, I find it disheartening how it rarely pops up when necessary.
Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.
Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.
So you completely agree with me then.
Rockets work via F=PA & therefore cannot function in 'space' because a gas does no work in a vacuum so P will be Zero; all completely in accord with Newton & thermodynamics.
Or are you another Trekky who thinks a finite gas-based system can create meaningful pressure against an infinite vacuum?
Got some 'math' to justify that?
T = (dm/dt)Ve + (pe - po)AeIf the external pressure po is zero, T can still be nonzero. No point me posting this because you don't even understand basic math.
Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.
So you completely agree with me then.
Rockets work via F=PA & therefore cannot function in 'space' because a gas does no work in a vacuum so P will be Zero; all completely in accord with Newton & thermodynamics.
Or are you another Trekky who thinks a finite gas-based system can create meaningful pressure against an infinite vacuum?
Got some 'math' to justify that?
There's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere. What force pairs with the rocket engine?The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
Pressure inside combustion chamber and in the rocket nozzle is not zero.
[/quote
]Pressure in an infinite vacuum can only ever be zero, as an infinite vacuum is an infinite nothing; and you cannot push against nothing...
Unless your shpayze-rokkit has an infinite amount of fuel, perhaps?
As for your 'pressure in teh combuschyn chaymbah pushes teh rokkit' bollocks, the amount of pressure claimed to be created would overwhelm the ability of the pumps to force fuel through the injector plates...
No; the pressure that pushes a rocket is created at the exit of the nozzle, where the burning fuel force-pairs with the external mass of the atmosphere.
All in accordance with Newton's Laws & Thermodynamics.
Legba, who told you there is a vacuum inside the rocket?Come back when you learn to read. Unless you're just acting stupid for the hell of it.
LolThere's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere. What force pairs with the rocket engine?The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
The thing we are dealing with here is the force pairing required to achieve the ultimate goal, in which case, we are dealing with a rocket and an external force to enable this to happen.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.
Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.
Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?
It matters not because it's all fantasy.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.
That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
Legba, who told you there is a vacuum inside the rocket?Come back when you learn to read. Unless you're just acting stupid for the hell of it.
Nobody said there was a vacuum in the chamber. What are you talking about?Legba, who told you there is a vacuum inside the rocket?Come back when you learn to read. Unless you're just acting stupid for the hell of it.
Mass is added to chamber at a set rate. That mass can only leave chamber at a lower rate therefore mass accumulates within chamber and it therefore not a vacuum. Simple.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.So the exhaust DOES force pair with the rocket engine when the "dense" atmosphere tries to squeeze the exhaust back into the rocket engine? Is that what you're trying to say?
Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.What about the countless simple experiments that prove those two laws do exist?
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.Huh? Are you saying that mass does not need a force to accelerate it?
Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?It's pointing towards the earth, or any other sufficiently massive body.
It matters not because it's all fantasy.I could be wrong, but it seems that you're under the impression that atmospheric resistance is a good thing. Automobile designers would tend to disagree with you seeing as they spend countless hours in wind tunnels trying to get their cars to have as little wind resistance as possible.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.
That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.You must be looking at a clean stained glass window, because nothing that you said makes any sense whatsoever.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
Mass is added to chamber at a set rate. That mass can only leave chamber at a lower rate
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Legba, who told you there is a vacuum inside the rocket?Come back when you learn to read. Unless you're just acting stupid for the hell of it.
Legba claims that there is no pressure inside the rocket. There is, regardless of whether it's a vacuum outside the rocket or not.
So you're saying that no force is required to accelerate a gas?Mass is added to chamber at a set rate. That mass can only leave chamber at a lower rate
Not if that mass is a gas & the chamber is open to an infinite vacuum.
Free Expansion says otherwise; you really should learn how it works...Haven't you figured out yet that free expansion only applies to a CLOSED system and rockets are OPEN systems?
No, he doesn't claim there's no pressure inside the rocket. When the rocket is a sealed unit it obviously holds pressure.Legba, who told you there is a vacuum inside the rocket?Come back when you learn to read. Unless you're just acting stupid for the hell of it.
Legba claims that there is no pressure inside the rocket. There is, regardless of whether it's a vacuum outside the rocket or not.
Tell me what inertia actually is.LolThere's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere. What force pairs with the rocket engine?The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
The thing we are dealing with here is the force pairing required to achieve the ultimate goal, in which case, we are dealing with a rocket and an external force to enable this to happen.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.
Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.
Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?
It matters not because it's all fantasy.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.
That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
Inertia doesn't exist.
Lol
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer?
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
You need to know what an actual exhaust is on a rocket, because it's not what you think it is.
So the exhaust DOES force pair with the rocket engine when the "dense" atmosphere tries to squeeze the exhaust back into the rocket engine? Is that what you're trying to say?
What about the countless simple experiments that prove those two laws do exist?Let's talk about them. Give me NASA's version and let's go through them to see they represent reality or fantasy.
Are you saying that mass does not need a force to accelerate it?Nope, I'm not saying that at all, why do you imply it?
Gravity is pointing towards the earth, or any other sufficiently massive body.Ok, so what happens inside the so called space station and the supposed satellites orbiting the so called Earth globe?
I could be wrong, but it seems that you're under the impression that atmospheric resistance is a good thing. Automobile designers would tend to disagree with you seeing as they spend countless hours in wind tunnels trying to get their cars to have as little wind resistance as possible.It's nothing to do with it being a good thing. It's needed. It's what keeps everything moving. It's what keeps everything alive. It's a clear case of energy applied in an action to gain an equal and opposite reaction.
Seriously, take a physics class that has lab sessions where they have simple experiment that walk you through step-by-step how all 3 of Newton's laws work.I don't need a physics class for what I'm dealing with, because the classes are all based on naivety and blatant lies, depending on who's dealing.
Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Tell me what inertia actually is.LolThere's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere. What force pairs with the rocket engine?The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
The thing we are dealing with here is the force pairing required to achieve the ultimate goal, in which case, we are dealing with a rocket and an external force to enable this to happen.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.
Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.
Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?
It matters not because it's all fantasy.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.
That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
Inertia doesn't exist.
Lol
Start a new topic if you want answers off people.Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer?
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Then stop whining and try to learn something in between texting whilst serving behind the counter.Tell me what inertia actually is.LolThere's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere. What force pairs with the rocket engine?The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.Then what force pairing does push the rocket?You are 100% wrong, that's why.The issue isn't about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.But it doesn't operate as one unit. A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B). Why is that so hard to understand?
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
The thing we are dealing with here is the force pairing required to achieve the ultimate goal, in which case, we are dealing with a rocket and an external force to enable this to happen.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.
Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.
Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?
It matters not because it's all fantasy.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.
That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
Inertia doesn't exist.
Lol
I'm not here to teach you physics 0.00000001.
We already went over this. Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
^lol.
Everyone's gone full retard, like they always do when the scientific FACT of Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum is mentioned...
That's cos it disproves teh shpayze-rokkitz & they know it.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.
Swearing will not make you right when you're blatantly wrong.Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Watch out, foremost authority on gases sceptimatic has something to say!
Look man, that's a simplification, but gases are made of atoms and have mass. And I don't give a fuck about what your stupid model has to say about this. Or, if you don't like billiard balls, you can think of the gas hitting the tank as it expands.
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Swearing will not make you right when you're blatantly wrong.Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
^lol.
Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Watch out, foremost authority on gases sceptimatic has something to say!
Look man, that's a simplification, but gases are made of atoms and have mass. And I don't give a fuck about what your stupid model has to say about this. Or, if you don't like billiard balls, you can think of the gas hitting the tank as it expands.
No gas is going to hit the tank like you think. The gas is not loose. I repeat, the gas is not loose.
No atoms/molecules or whatever name you want to bestow upon a gas/liquid or whatever, are free moving particles like you think.
Compression is a name that shows things to be SQUASHED together.
EXPANSION is a term used to see those compressed molecules/atoms or whatever you want to call them, start to release from the compression they are under. This happens on so many levels that we couldn't begin to count.
From liquid fuels to water to gases to ice, etc, etc. EXPANSION AND COMPRESSION....no true freedom for particles.
Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
Please link us to this post.
Lol bet you don't you little liar.
Meanwhile, lol at this...
Again:
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
An explosion between two gas molecules?
But isn't the 'explosion' in a rocket caused by expanding gas molecules?
So there must be expanding gas molecules between your two gas molecules?
Please redraw your lulzy cartoon to include them, eh?The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.
LMFAO!!!
RUN AWAY..!
FLEE!
You better understand what heated up means. Personally speaking, I think you should just give up. It's clear you're only here to stand behind the regulars (assuming you are not a sock puppet) and chant garbage.Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
Please link us to this post.
Lol bet you don't you little liar.
Meanwhile, lol at this...
Again:
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
An explosion between two gas molecules?
But isn't the 'explosion' in a rocket caused by expanding gas molecules?
So there must be expanding gas molecules between your two gas molecules?
Please redraw your lulzy cartoon to include them, eh?The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.
LMFAO!!!
RUN AWAY..!
FLEE!
Stop being an idiot. The reason why the two gas molecules move apart from each other (the "explosion") is because they're heated up. And contrary to what you think, free expansion does not mean that gases are somehow instantaneously launched at an infinite distance from each other.
Legba thinks rockets go against N3.
If I could see the problem, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.So the exhaust DOES force pair with the rocket engine when the "dense" atmosphere tries to squeeze the exhaust back into the rocket engine? Is that what you're trying to say?You need to know what an actual exhaust is on a rocket, because it's not what you think it is.
Put it this way. When you see burning fuel thrusting from your rocket, that is not the exhaust.
The cloud you see below that is the exhaust.
Can you see where the problem lies for you?
NASA's version is just like everyone else's version. Well, everyone except for you and Papa Legba, that is.What about the countless simple experiments that prove those two laws do exist?Let's talk about them. Give me NASA's version and let's go through them to see they represent reality or fantasy.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/newton.gif)
Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force.
The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:
F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.
The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects. The third law can be used to explain the generation of lift by a wing and the production of thrust by a jet engine.
Because that's what Newton's second law say and you say that it's BS.Are you saying that mass does not need a force to accelerate it?Nope, I'm not saying that at all, why do you imply it?
The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.Gravity is pointing towards the earth, or any other sufficiently massive body.Ok, so what happens inside the so called space station and the supposed satellites orbiting the so called Earth globe?
Zero gravity we are told. Is this the case?
*sigh* What exactly do you think is going on between the air and the cars in this video?I could be wrong, but it seems that you're under the impression that atmospheric resistance is a good thing. Automobile designers would tend to disagree with you seeing as they spend countless hours in wind tunnels trying to get their cars to have as little wind resistance as possible.It's nothing to do with it being a good thing. It's needed. It's what keeps everything moving. It's what keeps everything alive. It's a clear case of energy applied in an action to gain an equal and opposite reaction.
It doesn't matter whether you use a sleek car in a wind tunnel or a sleek car driving into atmosphere on a calm day to create the same effect.
How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?Seriously, take a physics class that has lab sessions where they have simple experiment that walk you through step-by-step how all 3 of Newton's laws work.I don't need a physics class for what I'm dealing with, because the classes are all based on naivety and blatant lies, depending on who's dealing.
Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.
So you completely agree with me then.
Rockets work via F=PA & therefore cannot function in 'space' because a gas does no work in a vacuum so P will be Zero; all completely in accord with Newton & thermodynamics.
Or are you another Trekky who thinks a finite gas-based system can create meaningful pressure against an infinite vacuum?
Got some 'math' to justify that?
T = (dm/dt)Ve + (pe - po)Ae
Also, the pressure here has two sources- the one exerted internally by the exploding fuel and the one created by the difference between the rocket's internal pressure and the pressure outside of it.
Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.
If the cloud below the rocket is the exhaust, then what is that stuff coming out of the rocket engines?The force. You know that force that requires another force to pair off?
Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.This is where Newtons first law is rendered useless because everything is in motion. Nothing is ever at rest.
This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.This inertia comes up but inertia cannot be explained as anything. We've been through this. This is another classic case of, "it just is"...
The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity.Only in a fictional space vacuum, right? or are you going to deny this?
If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest.Yes but it will never be at zero unless it's in a fictional vacuum, right?
The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.It doesn't really make any sense as any law at all.
The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:
F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.
The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all but still, even going by it, we still have the mass inside the supposed crafts as being like outside and thus, like Newy boy supposed stated. Mass upon mass will change the motion, yet the ISS always manages to never sway from it's supposed path due to mass movement inside of it by those ever exercising bad actors clanging about with weights and using the bars to chase each other in gorilla suits and such.
What exactly do you think is going on between the air and the cars in this video?I've already explained it.
How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?How do people learn to swim if they've never taken a swimming class?
Because Sceptimatic has an extreme case of special snowflake syndrome, he is the only person in the whole world that can "see the truth".No, not at all. I'm one of many people that can think for themselves and actually see through the bullshit that is constantly fed to us, which is backed up by people like you that probably don't know any better, yet are happy to follow the MASS trend.
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Ever gonna answer this?
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Make a seperate topic up. You've already been told.Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Answer this first.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
You already agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it.
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
So if I leave my car running while I try and fill the tank it will take infinite gallons of gas?You already agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it.
Lying again.
I said no such thing & you know it because you will not link to the post where I did so.
But don't worry, you won't get banned for all your lies, as you have special shill privileges on your special shill forum...
You are Special, socky-boy!when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
What internal pressure?
Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.
And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?
F=PA, remember?
When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?
Here is N3 again, in case you are as forgetful as every other clown here:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...
I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?
*Yawn!*
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
Do you mean a force like the one exerted by the rocket engine pushing back against that force coming out of it?If the cloud below the rocket is the exhaust, then what is that stuff coming out of the rocket engines?The force. You know that force that requires another force to pair off?
The burn that comes out of the nozzle is the first force which expands into the dense atmosphere, which squeezes back. It creates a huge resistance in equal measures.Just out of curiosity, does that cloud have any mass to it? Say, about the same mass as the propellant being burned.
The cloud is the energy expended (note I said "expended") which means "exhausted" because that is the rocket exhausted fuel, meaning no more thrusting burn..
Do you understand the concept of relative motion? For example, a car is in motion relative to the ground, but a passenger is not in motion relative to the car.Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.This is where Newtons first law is rendered useless because everything is in motion. Nothing is ever at rest.
And no, that is not trivial; it's absolutely pertinent.
As for the UNIFORM motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This can only apply in your fictional vacuum. It cannot apply in an atmosphere because nothing can carry on in a uniform manner in an atmosphere, because there is always an external force resisting it, not matter how strong or weak.Apparently you don't realize that most laws of physics refer to idealized conditions. Of course there are always forces acting on everything. However, Newton's laws allow us to determine the magnitude of each of those forces.
Inertia is simply the tendency of an object to keep doing what it's doing. You need to add an external force, such as friction or a push, in order to overcome that tendency.This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.This inertia comes up but inertia cannot be explained as anything. We've been through this. This is another classic case of, "it just is"...
Atmospheric pressure upon an energy force to overcome the resistance of any object.Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Atmospheric pressure is a force, but it acts as a force to resist the motion of an object more often than not (wind resistance).
Yes, it's referring to an ideal, friction free environment, but it doesn't necessarily need to be space. After all, lubricant companies go to great lengths to thy and reduce friction as much as possible here on earth.The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity.Only in a fictional space vacuum, right? or are you going to deny this?
No. A paper weight sitting on your desk is at rest, isn't it?If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest.Yes but it will never be at zero unless it's in a fictional vacuum, right?
What's wrong with it? ???The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.It doesn't really make any sense as any law at all.
The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:
F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.
Orbits are probably better a topic for another thread.The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all but still, even going by it, we still have the mass inside the supposed crafts as being like outside and thus, like Newy boy supposed stated. Mass upon mass will change the motion, yet the ISS always manages to never sway from it's supposed path due to mass movement inside of it by those ever exercising bad actors clanging about with weights and using the bars to chase each other in gorilla suits and such.
Never mind, eh?
Usually not as well as when someone has shown them.How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?How do people learn to swim if they've never taken a swimming class?
How do people learn to hunt if they've never been shown?
How do people invent things of nobody's shown them?
It's called using your brain and sifting out the good from the bad and learning from mistakes, as well as making sure that bad habits are avoided, like people adhering to certain ways/traits for no other reason than trusting their peers rather than their own senses.It's been said that you should learn from other people's mistakes because there's a pretty good chance that you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
Filling your tank with the engine running is both dangerous & has nothing to do with either the behaviour of gasses in a vacuum or N3...Once again I shut you right the fuck up.
Just nothing.
You really are trying to protect your latest bullshit 'proper scientist' sock-puppet EDao2 aren't you?
Lol fail.when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
What internal pressure?
Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.
And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?
F=PA, remember?
When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?
Here is N3 again, in case you are as forgetful as every other clown here:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...
I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?
*Yawn!*
If I leave my car running while filling to tank, will it take infinite gallons of gas?
There's nothing pushing back against it, except the atmosphere that is being pushed into.
Do you mean a force like the one exerted by the rocket engine pushing back against that force coming out of it?
Just out of curiosity, does that cloud have any mass to it? Say, about the same mass as the propellant being burned.The propellant being burned and exhausted will be exhausted mass of gas from a liquid burn.
Do you understand the concept of relative motion? For example, a car is in motion relative to the ground, but a passenger is not in motion relative to the car.What has this got to do with what we are talking about?
Apparently you don't realize that most laws of physics refer to idealized conditions. Of course there are always forces acting on everything. However, Newton's laws allow us to determine the magnitude of each of those forces.It doesn't matter about idealised or Newton allowing whatever. The fact is, the laws are crap except his supposed 3rd law.
Inertia is simply the tendency of an object to keep doing what it's doing. You need to add an external force, such as friction or a push, in order to overcome that tendency.An object will only keep doing what it's doing if a constant force is applied to it. This can never happen unless in a fictional vacuum.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Atmospheric pressure is a force, but it acts as a force to resist the motion of an object more often than not (wind resistance).An object can only move by friction which is by energy applied against another friction which is resistance.
Yes, it's referring to an ideal, friction free environment, but it doesn't necessarily need to be space. After all, lubricant companies go to great lengths to thy and reduce friction as much as possible here on earth.There is no friction free environment, ever, unless you go for the FICTIONAL space vacuum.
A paper weight sitting on your desk is at rest, isn't it?No it isn't. It's under ever changing atmospheric pressures upon it and within it. Expansion and contraction. You cannot deny this, can you? Only in a fictional space vacuum can this paper weight be at rest.
Orbits are probably better a topic for another thread.Not really because what I said about them is actually relevant to what we are talking about with this mass upon mass. You know this.
It's been said that you should learn from other people's mistakes because there's a pretty good chance that you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.That's what I'm doing. I'm learning from other people's mistakes and trying to teach those people that they bought into mistakes, or lies or naivety.
As I've said before, a good physics course will take you through step-by-step how and why these physical laws came to be so that you can properly judge their validity for yourself.The physics being argued about are wrong on the part of mainstream supposed science.
Once again I shut you right the fuck up.
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
You better understand what heated up means. Personally speaking, I think you should just give up. It's clear you're only here to stand behind the regulars (assuming you are not a sock puppet) and chant garbage.Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
Please link us to this post.
Lol bet you don't you little liar.
Meanwhile, lol at this...
Again:
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
An explosion between two gas molecules?
But isn't the 'explosion' in a rocket caused by expanding gas molecules?
So there must be expanding gas molecules between your two gas molecules?
Please redraw your lulzy cartoon to include them, eh?The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.
LMFAO!!!
RUN AWAY..!
FLEE!
Stop being an idiot. The reason why the two gas molecules move apart from each other (the "explosion") is because they're heated up. And contrary to what you think, free expansion does not mean that gases are somehow instantaneously launched at an infinite distance from each other.
Legba thinks rockets go against N3.
No I do not.
Stop Lying.
I know for a fact that rockets obey N3 because they push against a second, external mass to themselves.
That mass is the atmosphere through which they move.
Which is why they cannot work in 'space', which is a vacuum.
For further proof, see Free Expansion of gasses in a vacuum, which states a gas does no work in a vacuum.
Please try to use SCIENCE rather than LIES as a basis for your strange sci-fi cult beliefs, eh, Deaf Dick?
The fuel expands in all directions. As it expands, it pushes against the rocket, which makes it go forwards. Free expansion of gases has literally nothing to do with all of that.
If the cloud below the rocket is the exhaust, then what is that stuff coming out of the rocket engines?The force. You know that force that requires another force to pair off?
The burn that comes out of the nozzle is the first force which expands into the dense atmosphere, which squeezes back. It creates a huge resistance in equal measures.
The cloud is the energy expended (note I said "expended") which means "exhausted" because that is the rocket exhausted fuel, meaning no more thrusting burn..Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.This is where Newtons first law is rendered useless because everything is in motion. Nothing is ever at rest.
And no, that is not trivial; it's absolutely pertinent.
As for the UNIFORM motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This can only apply in your fictional vacuum. It cannot apply in an atmosphere because nothing can carry on in a uniform manner in an atmosphere, because there is always an external force resisting it, not matter how strong or weak.This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.This inertia comes up but inertia cannot be explained as anything. We've been through this. This is another classic case of, "it just is"...
Atmospheric pressure upon an energy force to overcome the resistance of any object.The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity.Only in a fictional space vacuum, right? or are you going to deny this?If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest.Yes but it will never be at zero unless it's in a fictional vacuum, right?The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.It doesn't really make any sense as any law at all.
The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:
F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all but still, even going by it, we still have the mass inside the supposed crafts as being like outside and thus, like Newy boy supposed stated. Mass upon mass will change the motion, yet the ISS always manages to never sway from it's supposed path due to mass movement inside of it by those ever exercising bad actors clanging about with weights and using the bars to chase each other in gorilla suits and such.
Never mind, eh?What exactly do you think is going on between the air and the cars in this video?I've already explained it.How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?How do people learn to swim if they've never taken a swimming class?
How do people learn to hunt if they've never been shown?
How do people invent things of nobody's shown them?
It's called using your brain and sifting out the good from the bad and learning from mistakes, as well as making sure that bad habits are avoided, like people adhering to certain ways/traits for no other reason than trusting their peers rather than their own senses.
The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity.Only in a fictional space vacuum, right? or are you going to deny this?"[/i]
If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest.Yes but it will never be at zero unless it's in a fictional vacuum, right?"[/i]
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.No, thanks!
"Exhaust stacking"
Quote from: Definitely MENTALYou are ignoring this user. Show me the post.No, thanks!
Bravo, shills!
The more stupid questions you ask, the more I learn TRUE physics!!!
Keep up the great work!
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure
What internal pressure?
Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.
And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?
F=PA, remember?
When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?
Also, the pressure here has two sources- the one exerted internally by the exploding fuel...
Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...
I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?
*Yawn!*
Once again I shut you right the fuck up.You really are trying to protect your latest bullshit 'proper scientist' sock-puppet EDao2 aren't you?
The fuel expands in all directions. As it expands, it pushes against the rocket, which makes it go forwards. Free expansion of gases has literally nothing to do with all of that.
Lol brainwasher.
You speak of the work done by the expansion of gasses then turn round & deny the scientific fact that when gasses expand into a vacuum they do so without doing any work.
You sound pretty mental.
Once again I shut you right the fuck up.You really are trying to protect your latest bullshit 'proper scientist' sock-puppet EDao2 aren't you?
You okay? The sudden antagonism against me is a bit random and unwarranted.
Vacuums don't negate the exertion of force between objects
The rest of the material that's contained in the chamber continues to exert force inside the chamber.
And the Joule Expansion experiment doesn't necessarily apply to exploding material
The sudden antagonism against me is a bit random and unwarranted.
So a gas force pairs with another gas? Then as previously asked, what force pairs with the rocket?"Exhaust stacking"
What's that?
I never mentioned it, so why bring it up?
A gas has mass & can therefore force-pair with another gas.
N3 says so.
Here it is again:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.Quote from: Definitely MENTALYou are ignoring this user. Show me the post.No, thanks!
Bravo, shills!
The more stupid questions you ask, the more I learn TRUE physics!!!
Keep up the great work!
Indeed; they are very shit indeed at their very shit jobs.
Still Still no answerHey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
So a gas force pairs with another gas?
Then as previously asked, what force pairs with the rocket?
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post. (http://[email protected])Speak up, I can't hear!
I think that's because he can't move the air in his lungs, because it's inside them so he can't apply a force to it.You are ignoring this user. Show me the post. (http://[email protected])Speak up, I can't hear!
So a gas force pairs with another gas?
Then as previously asked, what force pairs with the rocket?
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post. (http://[email protected])Speak up, I can't hear!
Legba thinks that somehow gases "feel out" the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressures, without touching anything, and somehow add extra momentum to the system without external forces.
Just using your laws of fysics. The air inside your lungs it the same object as you, so you can't push it out your body to form words.Legba thinks that somehow gases "feel out" the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressures, without touching anything, and somehow add extra momentum to the system without external forces.
lol wut.
Seriously; are you autistic?
Non human.Still Still no answerHey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Just using your laws of fysics. The air inside your lungs it the same object as you, so you can't push it out your body to form words.
Also Papa, I know you don't want to accept it, but, your a shill.
A negatively charged metal is different because it is non human, so are positively charged metals human then.Non human.Still Still no answerHey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Just using your laws of fysics. The air inside your lungs it the same object as you, so you can't push it out your body to form words.
Yes I can.
Are you autistic too?Also Papa, I know you don't want to accept it, but, your a shill.
Okay; you are autistic.
You didn't use me much. You could have used me. I'm better than a shirt. I'm a sword. I really am better than a shirt. I would have killed them. Look, they're still breathing. Stupid shirt.
Not half as strange as dealing with a non human.A negatively charged metal is different because it is non human, so are positively charged metals human then.Non human.Still Still no answerHey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Your made up physics are really strange.
Dealing with negatively charged metal is strange, ok?Not half as strange as dealing with a non human.A negatively charged metal is different because it is non human, so are positively charged metals human then.Non human.Still Still no answerHey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.Still no answer
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Your made up physics are really strange.
Not half as strange as dealing with a non human.
Yeah I agree.Not half as strange as dealing with a non human.
Think you may have a point scepti; though it's easy to mistake autistic meat-calculators for robots...
Whatever; they clearly know they've lost, whoever the fuck they are.
You people are idiots. Sorry.
The thing is, the burning propellant is pushing in all directions against everything that it touches, including the rocket engine. N3 says that the rocket engine pushes back just as hard on the burning propellant.There's nothing pushing back against it, except the atmosphere that is being pushed into.
Do you mean a force like the one exerted by the rocket engine pushing back against that force coming out of it?
You can't have Newton's third law without having the first two. You can't have one force pushing against another force unless you define what a force is (Newton's 2nd law) and you can't define what a force is if you don't know what it does (it overcomes inertia which is Newton's first law).Apparently you don't realize that most laws of physics refer to idealized conditions. Of course there are always forces acting on everything. However, Newton's laws allow us to determine the magnitude of each of those forces.It doesn't matter about idealised or Newton allowing whatever. The fact is, the laws are crap except his supposed 3rd law.
I've already explained why.
Have you ever played air hockey? Have you ever watched curling? Air cushions and smooth ice are about as good as it gets for showing what happens to objects in motion in a nearly friction free environment.Inertia is simply the tendency of an object to keep doing what it's doing. You need to add an external force, such as friction or a push, in order to overcome that tendency.An object will only keep doing what it's doing if a constant force is applied to it. This can never happen unless in a fictional vacuum.
The problem is that friction is a force that wants to resist motion, not encourage it. How do you think that your car's brakes work?Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Atmospheric pressure is a force, but it acts as a force to resist the motion of an object more often than not (wind resistance).An object can only move by friction which is by energy applied against another friction which is resistance.
Nothing works unless that first effort is applied. Energy. Action.
For that action to continue a reaction must always follow the action, before another energy action can ensue.
I didn't say that there is a truly friction free environment anywhere (even in space, which is not a perfect vacuum).Yes, it's referring to an ideal, friction free environment, but it doesn't necessarily need to be space. After all, lubricant companies go to great lengths to thy and reduce friction as much as possible here on earth.There is no friction free environment, ever, unless you go for the FICTIONAL space vacuum.
You see, we are not talking about minor friction, because any friction renders the law as not a law in the first place. It's fictional. Made up nonsense that has been made to appear like it's worth something. It's worth nothing in reality.No, friction does not negate any of Newton's laws, because friction is one of those external forces that he mentions.
Hmmm... I think that we have different ideas of what 'rest' means (why am I not surprised?).A paper weight sitting on your desk is at rest, isn't it?No it isn't. It's under ever changing atmospheric pressures upon it and within it. Expansion and contraction. You cannot deny this, can you? Only in a fictional space vacuum can this paper weight be at rest.
What if mainstream physics isn't wrong and you are the one who is naive and mistaken?It's been said that you should learn from other people's mistakes because there's a pretty good chance that you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.That's what I'm doing. I'm learning from other people's mistakes and trying to teach those people that they bought into mistakes, or lies or naivety.As I've said before, a good physics course will take you through step-by-step how and why these physical laws came to be so that you can properly judge their validity for yourself.The physics being argued about are wrong on the part of mainstream supposed science.
I believe you know this and I believe quite a few do. Admitting it is another thing, but each to their own.
The reports were unable to move through the vacuum that is your brain.You people are idiots. Sorry.
Oh, so were the two reports that I was told were not sent now somehow sent?
No idea wtf is going on here but you're not helping.
You never do though, do you?
Not really...
Semper Fi eh, Swimming Leatherneck?
The reports were unable to move through the vacuum that is your brain.You people are idiots. Sorry.
Oh, so were the two reports that I was told were not sent now somehow sent?
No idea wtf is going on here but you're not helping.
You never do though, do you?
Not really...
Semper Fi eh, Swimming Leatherneck?
Of your mom is drunk.
I was responding to you, idiot.
[quote author=poor unsuspecting victim] . . . . . . . [/quote]Vacuums don't negate the exertion of force between objects
There is no object at the exit of the nozzle for pressure to be created against,
And a vacuum is most definitely not an object.
Which is why a rocket cannot create a force-pairing within one.
It does not.
Because the 'material' is a gas, & gasses follow the path of least resistance from areas of high to low pressure.
So the gas will not exert pressure on anything as it passes into the Zero pressure of the vacuum.
Again, the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond doubt.
It applies to expanding gasses.
And combustion is expanding gasses.
Not that you have any proof combustion is even possible in a vacuum btw...
It is not.
You are 100% shill & are cordially invited to STFU & GTFO.
I was responding to you, idiot.
Well, it wasn't me! I have an alibi - I wasn't here, whenever the crime was committed.
Most people have the common sense to use the:Code: [Select][quote author=poor unsuspecting victim] . . . . . . . [/quote]but not jroa he expects the target to just know who the arrow - - - - is aimed - - - -> at!
It does make me wonder just who is the "idiot"!
I was responding to you, idiot.
Well, it wasn't me! I have an alibi - I wasn't here, whenever the crime was committed.
Most people have the common sense to use the:Code: [Select][quote author=poor unsuspecting victim] . . . . . . . [/quote]but not jroa he expects the target to just know who the arrow - - - - is aimed - - - -> at!
It does make me wonder just who is the "idiot"!
Are most people pecking away on a 5-inch phone, idiot?
I guess you meant to quote Papa Legba and not me?The reports were unable to move through the vacuum that is your brain.You people are idiots. Sorry.
Oh, so were the two reports that I was told were not sent now somehow sent?
No idea wtf is going on here but you're not helping.
You never do though, do you?
Not really...
Semper Fi eh, Swimming Leatherneck?
Well, the rest of us do not believe in fairies and leprechauns. Do you have actual evidence that you are being discriminated against, dick head?
Just using your laws of fysics. The air inside your lungs it the same object as you, so you can't push it out your body to form words.
Yes I can.
Are you autistic too?Also Papa, I know you don't want to accept it, but, your a shill.
Okay; you are autistic.
I guess you meant to quote Papa Legba and not me?
I guess you meant to quote Papa Legba and not me?
Careful... I implied that earlier and he called me an idiot. ::) I think. Or maybe he meant Rabinoz from somewhere even earlier in the thread. Or maybe he meant everyone. One can only guess what happens when jroa starts with the drunk posting.
The force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
No infinite vacuum in the chamber. You agree you can flow more into a tank than out of it.The force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
First, you have yet to prove that a gas can combust in an infinite vacuum.
Second, Boyle's Law suggests a gas cannot even exist as such in an infinite vacuum.
Thirdly, Free Expansion states that a gas will expand freely into an infinite vacuum without doing any work.
Fourthly, the gas will follow the path of least resistance as it does so, thus making the possibility of back-pressure creating a force-pairing on the rocket Zero.
And that's before we even get to the basics of N3, which the concept of an isolated force producing motion violates completely.
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
You agree you can flow more into a tank than out of it.
The thing is, the burning propellant is pushing in all directions against everything that it touches, including the rocket engine. N3 says that the rocket engine pushes back just as hard on the burning propellant.Lets be honest. If the engine pushed back just as hard on the burning propellant, the engines would be sheared off, never mind pushing a massive rocket into the sky. Can't you see this?
You can't have Newton's third law without having the first two. You can't have one force pushing against another force unless you define what a force is (Newton's 2nd law) and you can't define what a force is if you don't know what it does (it overcomes inertia which is Newton's first law).There's one law. Action/reaction. I'll accept it as a law for the hell of it. The others are basically not even worth mentioning, because they mean nothing in the cold light of day.
Have you ever played air hockey? Have you ever watched curling? Air cushions and smooth ice are about as good as it gets for showing what happens to objects in motion in a nearly friction free environment.Air hockey or anything else that appears to create less friction upon any mass, is still friction upon that mass. That mass will slow down the very micro/nano/sumo second that it is placed in motion. There is no constant motion and never will be, unless a fantasy space vacuum is used.
The problem is that friction is a force that wants to resist motion, not encourage it. How do you think that your car's brakes work?And energy is a force that wants to overcome resistance in order for something to SURVIVE. Can't you see the need for energy versus resistance to it?
No, friction does not negate any of Newton's laws, because friction is one of those external forces that he mentions.Yes but he uses them with bullshit added in.
Hmmm... I think that we have different ideas of what 'rest' means (why am I not surprised?).Viewing a paper weight by eye on a desk will naturally get you assuming it's at rest. You clearly know it's not, just as you know the pipes in your home appear at rest but are clearly not, because you can hear them expanding and contracting when the heating is on but less so or hardly at all if just atmospheric changes are upon them; yet they are still expanding and contracting, which means they are moving and not at rest.
What if mainstream physics isn't wrong and you are the one who is naive and mistaken?Mainstream physics will be right on many levels. just not the one's we are dealing with, which are clear duping to blatant lies.
A force is required to push a gas out of a chamber.
The gas leaving the rocket has velocity doesn't it, so that means some force has accelerated it from rest, if some force has accelerated it, then a second force must of acted on some objects in the opposite direction.Think of a sponge ball effect in a container. Open the container at one end and tell me how the sponge balls would act.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131032/calculate-flow-rate-of-air-through-a-pressurized-holeThe force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
First, you have yet to prove that a gas can combust in an infinite vacuum.
Second, Boyle's Law suggests a gas cannot even exist as such in an infinite vacuum.
Thirdly, Free Expansion states that a gas will expand freely into an infinite vacuum without doing any work.
Fourthly, the gas will follow the path of least resistance as it does so, thus making the possibility of back-pressure creating a force-pairing on the rocket Zero.
And that's before we even get to the basics of N3, which the concept of an isolated force producing motion violates completely.
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
Oh, how cute, you boys thinks that vacuum is a force :D LOL now amuse me by telling more about the "POWER" of vacuum, go ahead. :DWho thinks a vacuum is a force?
Oh, how cute, you boys thinks that vacuum is a force
Simply repeating your bullshit under a different name will not make it true, sokarul.
Sock-puppeting is forbidden here btw, but don't worry you won't be banned, as you are clearly protected.
Let's learn who you really are, & who really runs this forum:
http://bolenreport.com/the-skeptics-who-are-they-what-are-they/
Let's make this simple.The rocket accelerates in the opposite direction because the gases expand out of it into massive resistance of atmosphere.
Fuel is stored in the rocket. It ignites and accelerates out of the rocket. To accelerate the gas is subject to force. By N3 an equal and opposite force must act on the rocket. Rocket accelerates in opposite direction.
Can I suggest you get some help with your paranoia.
I have only ever posted as Mainframes and I only ever will.
Can I suggest you get some help with your paranoia.
I have only ever posted as Mainframes and I only ever will.
Said every shill, everywhere, ever, when busted for their piss-poor shilling...
Of course, the fact that your post was virtually a carbon-copy of sokarul's bullshit is just a coincidence, isn't it?
Anyhoo; let's look at who you are & who runs this forum again; I know being exposed for the filth you are sends you into a shill-rage so lol:
http://bolenreport.com/the-skeptics-who-are-they-what-are-they/
paranoia.
paranoid's PARANOIA
The force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
First, you have yet to prove that a gas can combust in an infinite vacuum.
Second, Boyle's Law suggests a gas cannot even exist as such in an infinite vacuum.
Thirdly, Free Expansion states that a gas will expand freely into an infinite vacuum without doing any work.
Fourthly, the gas will follow the path of least resistance as it does so, thus making the possibility of back-pressure creating a force-pairing on the rocket Zero.
And that's before we even get to the basics of N3, which the concept of an isolated force producing motion violates completely.
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131032/calculate-flow-rate-of-air-through-a-pressurized-holeThe force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
First, you have yet to prove that a gas can combust in an infinite vacuum.
Second, Boyle's Law suggests a gas cannot even exist as such in an infinite vacuum.
Thirdly, Free Expansion states that a gas will expand freely into an infinite vacuum without doing any work.
Fourthly, the gas will follow the path of least resistance as it does so, thus making the possibility of back-pressure creating a force-pairing on the rocket Zero.
And that's before we even get to the basics of N3, which the concept of an isolated force producing motion violates completely.
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
What's wrong with the formula given as the answer, it clearly shows that the gas leaving the containers will have velocity, and if it has velocity it must of been accelerated, so a force must of acted on it.
Also Scepti has yet to answer the photoelectric effect question.
Hi sokarul!This answers my question how?
Read this then stop pretending you haven't had an answer:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
Did you not get the bit about 'no repulsive force between molecules'?What has that got to do with the photoelectric effect?
if it has velocity it must of been accelerated, so a force must of acted on it.
Engineers design the rocket engines with metals that are strong enough to resist those forces. It's a very complicated process, which is why it's referred to as "rocket science".The thing is, the burning propellant is pushing in all directions against everything that it touches, including the rocket engine. N3 says that the rocket engine pushes back just as hard on the burning propellant.Lets be honest. If the engine pushed back just as hard on the burning propellant, the engines would be sheared off, never mind pushing a massive rocket into the sky. Can't you see this?
Yes, there will always be friction. So what? Friction is just one of the external forces that Newton is referring to in his first law.Have you ever played air hockey? Have you ever watched curling? Air cushions and smooth ice are about as good as it gets for showing what happens to objects in motion in a nearly friction free environment.Air hockey or anything else that appears to create less friction upon any mass, is still friction upon that mass. That mass will slow down the very micro/nano/sumo second that it is placed in motion. There is no constant motion and never will be, unless a fantasy space vacuum is used.
The sooner people grasp this, the sooner they will actually start to understand how duped they've been.
Actually, if you're going to reject Newton's first law because of friction, then you need to reject his third law as well because friction will keep the actions and reactions from being 100% equal.The problem is that friction is a force that wants to resist motion, not encourage it. How do you think that your car's brakes work?And energy is a force that wants to overcome resistance in order for something to SURVIVE. Can't you see the need for energy versus resistance to it?
It's required for the life of everything on and in this Earth.
You cannot type in here without using your energy to overcome resistance.
The key to it all is to always understand that for every action of that energy applied, there is an equal and opposite REACTION, which means nothing is lost.
What bullshit are you referring to?No, friction does not negate any of Newton's laws, because friction is one of those external forces that he mentions.Yes but he uses them with bullshit added in.
Don't take the "at rest" part too literally, otherwise you'll be claiming that atoms vibrating means that no object is ever at rest. At rest means that the paper weight sitting on your desk will keep sitting there until someone moves it.Hmmm... I think that we have different ideas of what 'rest' means (why am I not surprised?).Viewing a paper weight by eye on a desk will naturally get you assuming it's at rest. You clearly know it's not, just as you know the pipes in your home appear at rest but are clearly not, because you can hear them expanding and contracting when the heating is on but less so or hardly at all if just atmospheric changes are upon them; yet they are still expanding and contracting, which means they are moving and not at rest.
Mainstream physics can't be right on very many levels if Newton's laws are wrong.What if mainstream physics isn't wrong and you are the one who is naive and mistaken?Mainstream physics will be right on many levels. just not the one's we are dealing with, which are clear duping to blatant lies.
That internally stored energy is the force that pushes the gas out of the chamber.A force is required to push a gas out of a chamber.
Not if the chamber is open to a vacuum.
In that case the internally-stored energy of the gas will do the job without any need to be 'pushed'.
That internally stored energy is the force that pushes the gas out of the chamber.
Engineers design the rocket engines with metals that are strong enough to resist those forces. It's a very complicated process, which is why it's referred to as "rocket science".Of course. I forgot about the "UNOBTANIUM", silly me.
Yes, there will always be friction. So what? Friction is just one of the external forces that Newton is referring to in his first law.Yes, and because he refers to it, renders his law, not a law.
Actually, if you're going to reject Newton's first law because of friction, then you need to reject his third law as well because friction will keep the actions and reactions from being 100% equal.Actually they won't. You see action/reaction requires friction, because energy is required for immediate action to create immediate reaction to that action. It balances energy equally.
No, friction does not negate any of Newton's laws, because friction is one of those external forces that he mentions.Yep and it's fine for the 3rd law we are all familiar with.
What bullshit are you referring to?The bullshit of his object staying in constant motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Don't take the "at rest" part too literally, otherwise you'll be claiming that atoms vibrating means that no object is ever at rest. At rest means that the paper weight sitting on your desk will keep sitting there until someone moves it.I have to take it literally because it is literal.
Mainstream physics can't be right on very many levels if Newton's laws are wrong.Oh it can. The problem mainstream physics has is simply using Newtons and gravity, gravimeters, etc instead of actually just doing the calculations using reality. Atmospheric pressure upon dense mass, or denpressure to be more clear.
paranoia.paranoid's PARANOIA
Lol you angry autistic JREF paedos make it too fucking easy...
And, of course, you will not distract from my beat-down of your latest 'pseudo-science expert' sock-shill 'EDao2' either:The force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
First, you have yet to prove that a gas can combust in an infinite vacuum.
Second, Boyle's Law suggests a gas cannot even exist as such in an infinite vacuum.
Thirdly, Free Expansion states that a gas will expand freely into an infinite vacuum without doing any work.
Fourthly, the gas will follow the path of least resistance as it does so, thus making the possibility of back-pressure creating a force-pairing on the rocket Zero.
And that's before we even get to the basics of N3, which the concept of an isolated force producing motion violates completely.
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
None of you have anything; you daren't even post a full definition of N3 any more, even though it's the topic of a thread that YOU started.
Just give up eh, shills?
Repeat after me.A force is required to push a gas out of a chamber.
Not if the chamber is open to a vacuum.
In that case the internally-stored energy of the gas will do the job without any need to be 'pushed'.
What's more it will leave via the path of least resistance, doing no work on the way.
This is the result known as Free Expansion: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
Please learn to physics before pestering me further with your clumsy shillery.
So pressure x area isn't a force anymore? ???That internally stored energy is the force that pushes the gas out of the chamber.
Another one that can't read.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
So pressure x area isn't a force anymore?
"A vacuum is not a force."
>Papa believes that movement of gasses violates conservation of momentum
STFU sokarul>Papa believes that movement of gasses violates conservation of momentum
Like markjo, sokarul & Empirical, Conker is also reduced to flat-out Lying.
Because Free Expansion does not violate COM in any way, shape or form, and I have never stated that it does.
However, it is Conservation of Energy that is more usefully applied to gasses than COM, but they amount to the same thing...
COE is far easier to use than COM though.
As anyone who has read the links I provided should understand.
You're talking about gas expanding into a vacuum.So pressure x area isn't a force anymore?
What pressure?
We're talking about gas expanding into a vacuum remember?
I'm talking about gas being pushed out of a pressurized chamber into a vacuum.
Consider a man floating in space. He farts. That ejection of gas to the vacuum in a particular direction, if the man farting does not gain opposite momentum, causes net gain of momentum of the universe, acording to your model, something that violates CoM. Explain this.
Note that when ONE object accelerates a mass it does NOT by itself create motion.
A second mass, entirely separate to the first, is required to create a force-pairing with the accelerated mass & thus produce motion.
Note that when ONE object accelerates a mass it does NOT by itself create motion.
A second mass, entirely separate to the first, is required to create a force-pairing with the accelerated mass & thus produce motion.
Consider a man floating in space. He farts. That ejection of gas to the vacuum in a particular direction, if the man farting does not gain opposite momentum, causes net gain of momentum of the universe, acording to your model, something that violates CoM. Explain this.
Simple explanation, free expansion only applies to a closed system
*facepalm*Simple explanation, free expansion only applies to a closed system
Please stop lying.
A gas will expand freely into any vacuum, whether finite or infinite.
The means by which free expansion is achieved in a lab experiment uses a closed system out of necessity, as an infinite vacuum cannot be recreated on earth; but the results & theoretical implications of the experiment will apply to any vacuum of any size.
Even wikipedia admits it, though they hide it at the end of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
Plus, you do not know whether the universe is finite or not & therefore cannot state whether it is open or closed anyway.
Stop clutching at straws and deal with real physical laws.
Simple explanation, free expansion only applies to a closed system
Consider a man floating in space. He farts. That ejection of gas to the vacuum in a particular direction, if the man farting does not gain opposite momentum, causes net gain of momentum of the universe, acording to your model, something that violates CoM. Explain this.
Very scientific answer, sokarul...Just trying to match the level of science you used, I think I overshot it.
Initial conditions - forces are equal in all directions.
Remove screen - At this instant there is force acting on the container on each side part from the now missing screen. Therefore net force on container opposite where the screen was.
As the gas starts to hit the opposite end force will increase on that side and decrease on the other. You will actually for a short while have net force on that opposite side. The total force exerted on each side during the time between initial and final conditions will actually be equal because it is a closed system.
But this does not mean that the temperature of the gas does not change at all. During the process, the gas in the first partition does work on the gas in the second partition, roughly adiabatically. This means that locally for any pocket of gas, the equation pV^n - const. is valid. The temperature of the gas in the filled partition will decrease, while the temperature of the gas in the partition being filled will increase. Only after a long time will the conduction equilibrate temperature all over the container to its original value (if the gas is ideal).Look at the bolded parts, you know that the internal energy of an ideal gas is given by it's temperature. So the fact that the temperature of the gas changes shows that some work is done by it (so you are wrong when you say no work is done), but in the end it returns to its original temperature, so all the work it does is returned to it.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/
I'm talking about gas being pushed out of a pressurized chamber into a vacuum.
Please explain by what mechanism the gas is 'pushed into a vacuum'.
That internally stored energy is the force that pushes the gas out of the chamber.A force is required to push a gas out of a chamber.
Not if the chamber is open to a vacuum.
In that case the internally-stored energy of the gas will do the job without any need to be 'pushed'.
Or can you not understand the phrase 'the fact that there is no change in the total energy when a gas expands into a vacuum clearly shows that there is no repulsive force between its molecules'?You still don't understand the difference between "expanding into a vacuum" and "being pushed out of a pressurized chamber into a vacuum", do you?
Initial conditions - forces are equal in all directions.
Remove screen - At this instant there is force acting on the container on each side part from the now missing screen. Therefore net force on container opposite where the screen was.
As the gas starts to hit the opposite end force will increase on that side and decrease on the other. You will actually for a short while have net force on that opposite side. The total force exerted on each side during the time between initial and final conditions will actually be equal because it is a closed system.
Lol total bullshit:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
During free expansion no work is done on the system itself, Walter Mitty.
Please stop posting lies.
Initial conditions - forces are equal in all directions.
Remove screen - At this instant there is force acting on the container on each side part from the now missing screen. Therefore net force on container opposite where the screen was.
As the gas starts to hit the opposite end force will increase on that side and decrease on the other. You will actually for a short while have net force on that opposite side. The total force exerted on each side during the time between initial and final conditions will actually be equal because it is a closed system.
Lol total bullshit:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
During free expansion no work is done on the system itself, Walter Mitty.
Please stop posting lies.
No net work is done on the container. Learn the difference.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/Now if we could get you to actually read your citations:
Also lol that I am the only one posting citations.
Let's consider free expansion of an Ideal gas into vacuum. We have 2 (insulated) partitions, one with the gas, another vacuum, separated by a stop cock.
But acording to you, there is a way to have x mass (the vacuum) move in a direction without another mass y moving in the opposite and with equal momentum charge.
I never said x mass was a vacuum, half-wit.
As the gas leaves a combustion chamber it leaves faster than it would if it wasn't under an extra force.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/
Also lol that I am the only one posting citations.
Let's consider free expansion of an Ideal gas into vacuum. We have 2 (insulated) partitions, one with the gas, another vacuum, separated by a stop cock.
A vacuum is nothing, Conker, not 'a mass' as you claimed; there can be no reaction to nothing.No work is done? WRONG
Markjo: A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
No work is done means that kinetic energy at start equals kinetic energy at end, right. So if you count the containers as being a part of the system, then the container gaining then losing kinetic energy doesn't count as work if the gas gains then loses kinetic energy so counter it.So given that the temperature of the gas changes, work occurs. Once the gas equalises, all the work is returned to it, so no net work is done.
From the physics forum link you gaveQuoteBut this does not mean that the temperature of the gas does not change at all. During the process, the gas in the first partition does work on the gas in the second partition, roughly adiabatically. This means that locally for any pocket of gas, the equation pV^n - const. is valid. The temperature of the gas in the filled partition will decrease, while the temperature of the gas in the partition being filled will increase. Only after a long time will the conduction equilibrate temperature all over the container to its original value (if the gas is ideal).Look at the bolded parts, you know that the internal energy of an ideal gas is given by it's temperature. So the fact that the temperature of the gas changes shows that some work is done by it (so you are wrong when you say no work is done), but in the end it returns to its original temperature, so all the work it does is returned to it.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/
Markjo: A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.No, not at all.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Technically, only the first bit of gas does no work. After that, the gas expands into a space that is occupied by some gas molecules. But the work it does is on the gas itself and not the surroundings. The end result is that whatever work it does comes from the internal energy of the gas and simply adds back to internal energy, so the net change in internal energy is 0.
By now we all know he can't.Markjo: A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.No, not at all.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
In a Joule free expansion experiment, the pressurized chamber and the evacuated chambers are physically attached to each other.
A rocket in space is not physically attached to anything.
Can you grasp the not so subtle difference between the two?
Can't you see that your space vacuum and your space rocket are the exact same as your two connected chambers, with one evacuated and one full of gas?Markjo: A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.No, not at all.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
In a Joule free expansion experiment, the pressurized chamber and the evacuated chambers are physically attached to each other.
A rocket in space is not physically attached to anything.
Can you grasp the not so subtle difference between the two?
By the way, do you actually read your citations?
You really should.Quote from: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/Technically, only the first bit of gas does no work. After that, the gas expands into a space that is occupied by some gas molecules. But the work it does is on the gas itself and not the surroundings. The end result is that whatever work it does comes from the internal energy of the gas and simply adds back to internal energy, so the net change in internal energy is 0.
Can't you see that your space vacuum and your space rocket are the exact same as your two connected chambers, with one evacuated and one full of gas?By Jove, I think he's on to something.
How can't you see this?
Is it because you have two physical chambers?
If so, then you have to remember that you are using one chamber as your supposed vacuum to argue your free expansion and yet cannot see how a much larger vacuum of the space you say is a vacuum against a rocket, would lead to free expansion in a much more clear way, as in the potentially true theory of free expansion.Oops. False alarm.
You see, your two chambers only give rise to equilibrium of gases, not free expansion as such.
Papa legba has already stated similar about a billion times to you people but I'll also have a go.Can't you see that your space vacuum and your space rocket are the exact same as your two connected chambers, with one evacuated and one full of gas?By Jove, I think he's on to something.
How can't you see this?
Is it because you have two physical chambers?If so, then you have to remember that you are using one chamber as your supposed vacuum to argue your free expansion and yet cannot see how a much larger vacuum of the space you say is a vacuum against a rocket, would lead to free expansion in a much more clear way, as in the potentially true theory of free expansion.Oops. False alarm.
You see, your two chambers only give rise to equilibrium of gases, not free expansion as such.
But space isn't a chamber that the rocket is physically attached to.
The Joule (and later Joule-Thompson) free expansion experiments are very specific experiments under very specific conditions that produce a very specific results.
Even so, free expansion is completely irrelevant because (for the most part) no one cares what happens to the gas after it leaves the rocket engine.
It's the interaction of the hot, expanding gasses as they go through the engine that matters.
Papa legba has already stated similar about a billion times to you people but I'll also have a go.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WaB0WLjsoEfkQJRZfXDUOT7eAZzUglAMJng8UyF2SXy03SBaKqqZV9sHtERSxzi1x3vF9CNoIc8F9bowKADghEEmX2_ivY_dIPk1wHqATosoShOHe2EyoLMqEw) | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Var_mass_system.PNG) | (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/79/a6/f6/79a6f6feb49d75f7f4e5d9f177839c58.gif) |
Now then let's use your full gas chamber on its own and discard the other chamber that was a near vacuum and just use the near infinite or infinite space vacuum for the full gas chamber to sit in.Again, no one cares what happens to the gas after it leaves the chamber.
Now we open the valve to release the gases.
Now we have what we can call as near to free expansion as you can get because the gases will simply freely expand until they cannot expand anymore.
Until some of you actually provide citations for your bullshit I will simply repost this:So you're saying that this:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Until some of you actually provide citations for your bullshit I will simply repost this:Firstly
Rocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3 Citation 1
But this does not mean that the temperature of the gas does not change at all. During the process, the gas in the first partition does work on the gas in the second partition, roughly adiabatically. This means that locally for any pocket of gas, the equation pV^n - const. is valid. The temperature of the gas in the filled partition will decrease, while the temperature of the gas in the partition being filled will increase. Only after a long time will the conduction equilibrate temperature all over the container to its original value (if the gas is ideal).Look at the bolded parts, you know that the internal energy of an ideal gas is given by it's temperature. So the fact that the temperature of the gas changes shows that some work is done by it (so you are wrong when you say no work is done), but in the end it returns to its original temperature, so all the work it does is returned to it.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/free-expansion-of-gas.687051/(citation 2)
If those people think rockets work in the so called vacuum of space, then they're not as smart as they, or people make them out.
It's strange that you and your soul-buddy Papa can have these funny ideas, when much smarter people than you from Tsiolkovsky and Goddard (long before NASA) to modern rocket engineers (even like TheEngineer!) had quite different ideas about how rockets (AND jet engines) work.
All these come up with essentially the same result (Tsiolkovsky's simple equations omits the pressure difference term), the bit that explains why rockets work better in a vacuum (no air resistance and maximum thrust from the pressure difference term).The sooner people realise that a near vacuum creates nothing of any resistance to any energy placed into it, the sooner people will realise that no reaction can be given back in equal measures for an action.Look mummy, they're all out of step except for our Sceppy and Papa!
You insist on this law or that law, but all the laws of physics are in agreement and many of these systems can be analysed by a number of methods. If the method and working are correct the answer must be the same, whether gas laws or Newton's laws are used.One basic law by whoever. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. No more laws are needed, nor make any sense in reality, if logically looked at.
And while we are at it the only fundamental one of Newton's Laws of Motion is the second F = ma, both the others can be derived from it anyway - to deny one of Newton's Laws of motion is to deny them all!As I said above.
Now, just for your entertainment, here is a link to some pretty pics for you! Images for Tsiolkovsky's Rocket Equation (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tsiolkovsky+rocket+equation&biw=1239&bih=663&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUxtbBoOrNAhXDQpQKHZ8VDWgQsAQIQQ) have fun!The same thing applies and also having digs will not further your efforts to be correct. Carry on like this and you keep getting red kisses at the end of your work.
You know things like:Two are from your favourite authority!
One basic law by whoever. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. .The action of a mass being pushed out the back of a rocket results in the reaction of the rocket being pushed forwards.
No matter how hard you try, I'm not going to let this one slip. Where is the reaction of the gas (I never said vacuum, your silly little game is too obvious) where it leaves the farting man? Either you point to it, or you violate Conservation of momentumWhat are you talking about?
You don't even know how that mass is being pushed out, do you?One basic law by whoever. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. .The action of a mass being pushed out the back of a rocket results in the reaction of the rocket being pushed forwards.
Glad to see that we're making progress.
Does it really matter? The only thing that matters is that the mass is being pushed out the back. The mass doesn't even need to be a gas. It could just as easily be a liquid like water through a fire hose or a solid mass like a bullet from a gun.You don't even know how that mass is being pushed out, do you?One basic law by whoever. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. .The action of a mass being pushed out the back of a rocket results in the reaction of the rocket being pushed forwards.
Glad to see that we're making progress.
The nozzle is open in the space vacuum as we are told.Gasses push against everything that they touch. In the case of liquid fuel rocket engines, the propellant burns inside the combustion chamber creating very hot, expanding gasses that push against the walls of the combustion chamber. The expanding gasses are pushed through the opening (throat) and as a result, the rocket is pushed the other way.
Ok, now tell me what this gas is pushing against and tell me how it pushes.
In your own words.
Does it really matter?Oh yes, it really really matters.
The only thing that matters is that the mass is being pushed out the back.It's HOW it is pushed. You keep side stepping this. Why?
The mass doesn't even need to be a gas. It could just as easily be a liquid like water through a fire hose or a solid mass like a bullet from a gun.It doesn't matter. We are dealing with a space vacuum as we are told and rockets expelling gases by some means into the vacuum and somehow also pushing the opposite way to push the rocket.
Gasses push against everything that they touch.Yes they do in normal every day Earthly atmospheric ways or when they are compressed into a SEALED container.
In the case of liquid fuel rocket engines, the propellant burns inside the combustion chamber creating very hot, expanding gasses that push against the walls of the combustion chamber.How are they pushed through the opening to be expelled into the space vacuum that we are told is in space?
The expanding gasses are pushed through the opening (throat) and as a result, the rocket is pushed the other way.
All of the processes that we are really interested in happen inside the rocket engine. What happens outside the rocket engine doesn't matter in the slightest.Apparently with your adhered to laws of rocketry in vacuums they don't, but the truth is far different...far far different, because what happens outside of the rocket from the inner nozzle to the atmosphere, is extremely pertinent to the operation of that rocket.
It's directed at anyone that doesn't believe rockets work.No matter how hard you try, I'm not going to let this one slip. Where is the reaction of the gas (I never said vacuum, your silly little game is too obvious) where it leaves the farting man? Either you point to it, or you violate Conservation of momentumWhat are you talking about?
Is this directed at me or someone else?
So what's all this about you farting. What do you mean you like to fart in lifts?It's directed at anyone that doesn't believe rockets work.No matter how hard you try, I'm not going to let this one slip. Where is the reaction of the gas (I never said vacuum, your silly little game is too obvious) where it leaves the farting man? Either you point to it, or you violate Conservation of momentumWhat are you talking about?
Is this directed at me or someone else?
Random question, why do you keep changing your beliefs?I haven't changed anything. If you interpret it all in different ways, it's not my problem. I've told you many times to pay attention and learn stuff but all you do is come back with vile abuse and ridiculous child like retorts.
First rockets created a low pressure area behind them and the resulting air rushing in propelled the rocket. You know like a swimmer somehow. Now rockets just push off air.
Rocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3 Citation
And this isn't a citation because?Quote from: HyperPhysicsRocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3 Citation
Also you still haven't answered this
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/lol_orig.jpg)
And this isn't a citation because?Quote from: HyperPhysicsRocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3 Citation
Also you still haven't answered this
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/lol_orig.jpg)
Rocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.Where does this say anything about N3?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3
Just LOLhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html
Can you see what they did there?
No, of course you can't...
Because you're a dumb as dogshit unbannable shill.
But it was an intelligence test; which you failed...
'Because nonsense'.
an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.
The force exerted between objects is between the exploding gas and the rocket itself.
First, you have yet to prove that a gas can combust in an infinite vacuum.
Second, Boyle's Law suggests a gas cannot even exist as such in an infinite vacuum.
Thirdly, Free Expansion states that a gas will expand freely into an infinite vacuum without doing any work.
Fourthly, the gas will follow the path of least resistance as it does so, thus making the possibility of back-pressure creating a force-pairing on the rocket Zero.
an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.
A rocket is not an isolated system you dumb as dogshit unbannable shill.
Look:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isolated_system
Dumb as dogshit.
(physics) A system that does not interact with its surroundings, that is, its total energy and mass stay constant.So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.
So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.
Blah, lie, bullshit...
empiempirically
Then that means that a rocket in a vacuum is an isolated system.So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.
It can't.
So you admit that the rocket is a isolated system then.So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.
It can't.
NounWhere does this definition mention losing mass, after a "that is". Interaction with surroundings is needed to lose mass.
isolated system (plural isolated systems)
(physics) A system that does not interact with its surroundings, that is, its total energy and mass stay constant.
Good point, I'll stop arguing with him.
He's not going to answers. He'ssayinggoing to say something about you two parroting each other, which proves something or another.
The word shillis beingwill be typed.
Well, it should be pretty obvious by now that Papa Legba has a reading disability which does not allow him to comprehend anything that contradicts him, which seems pretty ironic for a loa who "facilitates communication, speech, and understanding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Legba)."
He's not going to answer. He'ssayinggoing to say something about you two parroting each other, which proves something or another.
The word shillis beingwill be typed.
Enough of dogshit dumb unbannable lying shills...
Back to this:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
Blah, lie, bullshit...
You neglect to mention that the combustion of fuel & oxidiser in your video can only be sustained by the presence of a plasma.
Do your 'shpayze-rokkitz' sustain their combustion in plasma?
No; they do not.
So right off the bat you are shown to be a Liar.
As you further are by your attempt to shift the onus of proof for your thermodynamics-violating claims onto me.
Summary: fuck off shill.
But not without laughing at your spelling of 'empirically' first:empiempirically
LOL!!!
What a puffed-up fucking fraud you are.
The video doesn't state that it's method was the only way
Papa, you aren't getting away from this one. Where is the reaction mass for the gas, Papa?He isn't going to answer you, his state of mind is so fucked that he actually thinks he has already countered your point.
Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of GasFrom: Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas)
We know, the rockets in space use Newton's 3rd law to increase their velocity and hence move. What I don't understand is how it is possible in space aka vacuum-state without air? From what I know, Joule's "Free Expansion of Gas" says that free-expansion compresses the gas and is therefore "affected" by vacuum so it can't make the rocket move as the gas will have zero press/force. Could someone please explain me how rockets do really work and the above-mentioned statement?
Actually, please have a look at this site: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632 (http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632)
Not: The site appears to include some conspiracy theory thingummies, but made me wonder anyway.
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.There is lot more in that reference, start with
This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force P.sp pushing on it.
Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work.
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.
The rocket motor burns a mixture of fuel and oxygen to produce a very hot gas. By very hot we mean that the gas molecules have very high random velocities:
I'll just do it like this then...Except that the rocket isn't physically attached to an evacuated chamber.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.Does a Joule free expansion experiment include burning propellant?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002Please post a quote from any of those sources that even mentions the word "rocket".
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.You seem to have a rather interesting definition of "prove".
Here is the definition of 'work':And yet the gas is able to move from the pressurized chamber to the evacuated chamber.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Yes, Deaf Dick; I already said you are afraid to even post a definition of N3.
Thanks for proving it with your latest mad Aspie-fest.
I'll just do it for you, eh?
Here:
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Note that when ONE object accelerates a mass it does NOT by itself create motion.
A second mass, entirely separate to the first, is required to create a force-pairing with the accelerated mass & thus produce motion.
Okay retard; separate your fuel from your rocket...
Now the rocket is empty & cannot create a force.
I've wiped more intelligent life than you off my fucking shoe.
The video doesn't state that it's method was the only way
The video doesn't state much at all so is hardly 'scientific evidence'.
And as it's the only 'proof' you have for combustion in a vacuum I'd say you're pretty fucked, aren't you?
Yep; all of thermodynamics.
Which trumps that shit you posted that you don't even know is scientific or not...
You fucking retard.
So you don't even know what thermodynamics is?
Pretty fucked aren't you?
Here; thermodynamics:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
So the laws of thermodynamics don't prove anything but your one shitty unattributed & unexplained youtube does?
Yeah; you're completely fucked in the head.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Yes.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.No. Not even close.
And the Lies just keep coming...Yes, your lies are getting pretty tedious.
Who has to do what now?Well, it might help if you would start telling the truth.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Correct.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.No, it isn't.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.The gas is released into an insulated, evacuated chamber where the pressure is allowed to equalize. How does that resemble a rocket in space?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002Please provide a quote from any of those sources that mentions rockets or space.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.They do no such thing and you know it. Please stop lying.
PROVES, markjo.It seems that you've told this lie to yourself so many times that you might actually believe it.
Here is the definition of 'work':That is one definition of work. Here is another:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.So pressure * area is no longer a force and the internal stored energy of the compressed gas will not push the gas into the vacuum. Good to know.
Game fucking over shills.Then why are you still playing?
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.I thought I'd take a look at the latest Copy Pasta being cooked up today, but it's still the same old menu - time for a new chef!
STFU about N3 markjo; I'm the only person who has even tried to discuss it correctly.*cough*bullshit*cough*
Anyhoo; your knowledge of obscure military documents is noted.That's because your points are nonsense.
Sadly, neither of your links addressed my points.
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.
LMFAO!!!
A Push.
You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):
Newton's Third Law
Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.
Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
Rocket - open system
QuoteRocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3
Isolated system =/= closed systemNo, an isolated system is a closed one, it's just there are two different ways to define the system,
That is all.
STFU about N3 markjo; I'm the only person who has even tried to discuss it correctly.
Legba, there's also the law of conservation of linear momentum. You're implying that the free expansion of gases in the case of the rocket defies it.
Why was the voodoo creep allowed to vote 10 times?He has a lot of alts, Skepti is one. Lol.
STFU Geoff.Legba, there's also the law of conservation of linear momentum. You're implying that the free expansion of gases in the case of the rocket defies it.
No I am not.
In fact the free expansion proves it.
The fact that you do not understand the connection between COM & COE may explain your confusion...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
Or you could just be another autistic shill?
Anyhoo; again:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
Papa, Gaia, Sceppy, Totallackey + the FEers that think the "non-FEers" Papa and Gaia are their "knights in shining armour". That armour is getting a bit rusty now!Why was the voodoo creep allowed to vote 10 times?He has a lot of alts, Skepti is one. Lol.
Legba, there's also the law of conservation of linear momentum. You're implying that the free expansion of gases in the case of the rocket defies it.
No I am not.
In fact the free expansion proves it.
The fact that you do not understand the connection between COM & COE may explain your confusion...
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and the vessel?
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and the vessel?
Oops. Sorry, that's supposed to be a Papa Legba quote.A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and the vessel?
Wait what? I didn't say that!
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
Oops. Sorry, that's supposed to be a Papa Legba quote.A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and the vessel?
Wait what? I didn't say that!
That's okay, I'm guessing that he won't answer the question anyway because he knows that a force pair between the pressurized gas and its vessel proves his whole free expansion argument to be completely irrelevant.Oops. Sorry, that's supposed to be a Papa Legba quote.A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and the vessel?
Wait what? I didn't say that!
Yeah, I know, I just found it funny ;)
I'm guessing that he won't answer the question anyway because he knows that a force pair between the pressurized gas and its vessel proves his whole free expansion argument to be completely irrelevant.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
At least we can all agree that if you put a cap on the end of the rocket and made it keep all the gas in a second volume rather than expelling it, it wouldn't work.
with the rest of the insulated enclosure a vacuum... what is "the rest of the enclosure" in the case of a rocket in space?
Later, without any external forces acting on the body, we see that the body has broken in half
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pairing exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
As for your other noob sock-shill that doesn't seem to understand that space is a vacuum and that gasses are not solids, he can fuck off too.
I understand that space is a vacuum.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Oh we got a right retard tag team here ain't we?So you're saying that pressure * area is not a force?
You REALLY wanna spam your 'unbalanced forces in a balloon' shit false analogy AGAIN, don't you markjo?
Well I won't let you.
Because it's unscientific bullshit for which you have zero proof you mental fucker.
HERE I GO WITH MY BULLSHIT!!! I TRIED IT BEFORE & GOT KICKED TO THE KERB!!! BUT I'M HOPING YOU'VE ALL FORGOTTEN THAT SO HERE I GO AGAIN!!!
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY SCIENCE!!! I CANNOT EXTRAPOLATE FROM EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS TO SIMILAR REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS!!! THIS MAY SEEM LIKE AUTISM BUT IN FACT IT IS BECAUSE I AM A MASSIVELY OBVIOUS SOCK-PUPPET SHIL!!!
At least we went from Legba claiming a rocket and its fuel should be considered the same object and saying Newton's laws disprove the functionality of rockets in a vacuum to Legba at least accepting that they're two objects
Fixed Errors.HERE I GO WITH MY BULLSHIT!!! I TRIED IT BEFORE & GOT KICKED TO THE KERB!!! BUT I'M HOPING YOU'VE ALL FORGOTTEN THAT SO HERE I GO AGAIN!!!
STFU you twat.I DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY SCIENCE!!! I CANNOT EXTRAPOLATE FROM EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS TO SIMILAR REAL-LIFE SITUATIONS!!! THIS MAY SEEM LIKE AUTISM BUT IN FACT IT IS BECAUSE I AM A MASSIVELY OBVIOUS SOCK-PUPPET SHIL!!!
STFU you twat.
At least we went from Legba claiming a rocket and its fuel should be considered the same object and saying Newton's laws disprove the functionality of rockets in a vacuum to Legba at least accepting that they're two objects
No 'we' fucking didn't you lying psycho...
How the fuck is ONE rocket TWO objects?
Where the fuck did I ever say such a fucking stupid thing?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
You're just reduced to making shit up now.
Grow the fuck up you twat.
Back to science & sanity:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
Fuck. Here we go again.
Ok then, if you consider the rocket and the fuel to be 1 object, why are you even talking about free expansion? You just acknowledged they have different properties relevant to the problem, so why do you STILL consider them one? Unless you want to say the rocket itself expands as well or something dumb like that.
Anyway, I guess you've disproved Newton's laws by now, since you seem to be so certain that it's possible for the total momentum of a system to increase without any external force.
Boo-Hoo!Yes, because as we all know, gas has no mass so no momentum. LOL
At least I'm not dogshit-dumb enough to try & apply conservation of linear momentum to a fucking gas you retard.
He does believe that the rocket expands.Bullshit
[/b]
Fuck. Here we go again.
Ok then, if you consider the rocket and the fuel to be 1 object, why are you even talking about free expansion? You just acknowledged they have different properties relevant to the problem, so why do you STILL consider them one? Unless you want to say the rocket itself expands as well or something dumb like that.
Boo-Hoo!
At least I'm not dogshit-dumb enough to try & apply conservation of linear momentum to a fucking gas you retard.
Now for some science:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
Undeniable evidence, Papa defines that as only being something he pulled out his ass.Repetitive Bullshit
[/b]
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Now Legba realized conservation of momentum completely fucks his upside down way of "thinking" up, and decided yo say "Fuck it, I guess Newton's laws don't apply to gases!"!!! This is just great. Just wait until he is faced with undeniable evidence that indicates the opposite! ;D
No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
Boo-Hoo!
At least I'm not dogshit-dumb enough to try & apply conservation of linear momentum to a fucking gas you retard.
Now for some science:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Now Legba realized conservation of momentum completely fucks his upside down way of "thinking" up, and decided yo say "Fuck it, I guess Newton's laws don't apply to gases!"!!! This is just great. Just wait until he is faced with undeniable evidence that indicates the opposite! ;D
This stopped being a 'debate' when you started Lying.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002)
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html)
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html)
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
Like I said, when you start openly Lying, the 'debate' is lost...
All you have left is shitposting.
I, however, have all the laws of science on my side:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002)
http://web (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html).mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html[/url]
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html)
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
[/b]
Like I said, when you start openly Lying, the 'debate' is lost...
All you have left is shitposting.
I, however, have all the laws of science on my side:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002)
http://web (http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html).mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html[/url]
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html)
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
[/b]
Now in COLOR !
You are the one that uses the double container; one full of gas and the other a vacuum as you say.
How exactly is a rocket in space "remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment"?
By expansion once the pressurised vessel is opened.No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
[You are the one that uses the double container; one full of gas and the other a vacuum as you say.To clarify, "free expansion" means the gas is not pumped into the second chamber by any outside force. The barrier between the two chambers is simply opened to allow the gas to expand into the second chamber under its own pressure.
You then say that opening a valve from the full container to flow into the container with the vacuum creates what you say is free expansion.
Papa Legba has just told you that a rocket in your space is a container of gas that is sealed against the vacuum of that space.Yes, that's true.
Once the rocket opens its valve, it then loses the gas to the vacuum which is the very same free expansion and in fact would be so free as to be literally completely able to expand fully due to the space vacuum that you people adhere to.Right, but the difference is that the end of the rocket is not capped; the gas is expelled into space rather than into a contained volume. So the momentum from the gas moving into the space all in the same direction has to be equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket in the opposite direction. In the experiment with the two chambers, this doesn't happen because the gas quickly hits the opposite wall of the second chamber and counteracts any reactive force on the first chamber.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.Read more at: Brainy Quoted. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle132031.html)
Like I said, when you start openly Lying, the 'debate' is lost...You're the one lying about a rocket in a vacuum resembling a Joule free expansion experiment.
I, however, have all the laws of science on my side:Just because they're laws of physics doesn't mean that they you know how to apply them correctly.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Is there a force pairing between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas leave the vessel if there is no movement?
I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
Then why don't you give an example that is relevant to the discussion?I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
Magnetic fields. But they are irrelevant to our discussion.
What evidence do you have that a molecule normally measured in nanometers can expand to meters?By expansion once the pressurised vessel is opened.No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
it is happening all the time, people are don't want it to happen so they don't admit but...I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
it is happening all the time, people are don't want it to happen so they don't admit but...I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
People have breathed under the water that what I heard,people have seen big foot, people did things that are against all odds.
maybe even myself experience such a thing as hitting the wall and not feel any opposite equal force,maybe I don't know I don't remember I haven't notice but it is happening all the time for sure.
Then why don't you give an example that is relevant to the discussion?I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
Magnetic fields. But they are irrelevant to our discussion.
it is happening all the time, people are don't want it to happen so they don't admit but...I give you an example, lets take the law of newton saying when you hit something the force will come back as same hard.Can you give a particular example where you believe there isn't an equal and opposite force applied to you when you apply a force to something?
People have breathed under the water that what I heard,people have seen big foot, people did things that are against all odds.
maybe even myself experience such a thing as hitting the wall and not feel any opposite equal force,maybe I don't know I don't remember I haven't notice but it is happening all the time for sure.
Lay off the drugs.
Magnetic fields. But they are irrelevant to our discussion.
Right, but the difference is that the end of the rocket is not capped; the gas is expelled into space rather than into a contained volume. So the momentum from the gas moving into the space all in the same direction has to be equal and opposite to the momentum of the rocket in the opposite direction.No it doesn't. It's what would be deemed as true free expansion if space were what we are told it is. (Vacuum)
In the experiment with the two chambers, this doesn't happen because the gas quickly hits the opposite wall of the second chamber and counteracts any reactive force on the first chamber.
You can see the difference by calculating the center of mass of the devices as well. If the two-chamber system is on wheels or in space, it will shift a bit to the left a bit so the center of mass doesn't move, and that's it. But in the rocket system the gas would continue to move outward into the space and the rocket would continue to move in the opposite direction, leaving the center of mass in the same place.
Nobody said they expand to metre's except for you.What evidence do you have that a molecule normally measured in nanometers can expand to meters?By expansion once the pressurised vessel is opened.No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
When you tip up a bucket of water, that water all heads towards the ground. It doesn't kick off of the bottom of the bucket, it just falls down the sides of it against atmospheric pressure below it.
I will admit being a troll when you admit being a herd of geeks educated nuts lunatics which has a narrow-mind like a pin.
I will admit being a troll when you admit being a herd of geeks educated nuts lunatics which has a narrow-mind like a pin.
Well I am not an English speaker, but let's admit my point is much more actual than your points.I will admit being a troll when you admit being a herd of geeks educated nuts lunatics which has a narrow-mind like a pin.
I refuse to admit to anything that is not expressed using actual grammar.
What is their max size?Nobody said they expand to metre's except for you.What evidence do you have that a molecule normally measured in nanometers can expand to meters?By expansion once the pressurised vessel is opened.No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
Magnetic fields. But they are irrelevant to our discussion.
Can you be more specific? When is an equal and opposite force not applied regarding magnetic fields?
This answer has wings and a very light torso.What is their max size?Nobody said they expand to metre's except for you.What evidence do you have that a molecule normally measured in nanometers can expand to meters?By expansion once the pressurised vessel is opened.No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
Yeah I shut you right the fuck up. You couldn't answer such an easy question.This answer has wings and a very light torso.What is their max size?Nobody said they expand to metre's except for you.What evidence do you have that a molecule normally measured in nanometers can expand to meters?By expansion once the pressurised vessel is opened.No work=no force=no movement.How does the gas get out of the pressurized vessel if it can't move?
Basically what I'm about to tell you will fly right over your head.
Water expands and appears to boil in a very low pressure environment but also freezes in an even lower pressure environment.
An equal force IS applied, but it's not opposite. That's called the weak form of Newton's third law. I can give you many examples, but instead I will stick to the simplest and most popular one. If we have a charge A moving along the x axis and a charge B moving along the y axis, they are equivalent to currents along these directions, and that creates magnetic fields. Now it's a bit complicated to show why exactly and I can't do it since I am on my phone, but A applies a force on B that is parallel to the x axis and B applies a force on A that is parallel to the y axis. The forces are equal, but they're not opposite, they're perpendicular to each other.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
I, however, have all the laws of science on my side:Like Newton's 3rd law (the topic of this thread)?
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.Did Joule use a burning propellant as the gas in his experiment?
No work=no force=no movement.How did the pressurized gas move into the vacuum if there was no movement?
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
You just don't get it do you?Obviously not.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.Did Joule use a burning propellant as the gas in his experiment?
No work=no force=no movement.How did the pressurized gas move into the vacuum if there was no movement?
When you start openly Lying, the 'debate' is lost...The debate is lost when you refuse to answer simple questions that you know will cause you to lose the debate.
All you have left is shitposting.Yes, you're quite the authority on shitposting.
I, however, have all the laws of science on my side:Too bad that you don't know how to properly apply those laws.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pair exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.Did Joule use a burning propellant as the gas in his experiment?
No work=no force=no movement.How did the pressurized gas move into the vacuum if there was no movement?
An equal force IS applied, but it's not opposite. That's called the weak form of Newton's third law. I can give you many examples, but instead I will stick to the simplest and most popular one. If we have a charge A moving along the x axis and a charge B moving along the y axis, they are equivalent to currents along these directions, and that creates magnetic fields. Now it's a bit complicated to show why exactly and I can't do it since I am on my phone, but A applies a force on B that is parallel to the x axis and B applies a force on A that is parallel to the y axis. The forces are equal, but they're not opposite, they're perpendicular to each other.
Right, because there's momentum in the electric and magnetic fields themselves that is being converted to net linear momentum as the charged particles move away from each other. I did not know this!
I already told you, time wasting shill.Says the one posting the same lies over and over and over and over again.
And when you start openly Lying, the 'debate' is lost...
All you have left is shitposting.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not 'lies' markjo.No, but you are a liar who tries to use the laws of thermodynamics deceptively.
... is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
I, however, have all the laws of science on my side:
Ok let's live Legba alone for a while, until he gets out of loop mode.Stop spewing lies and licking each other's dishes and you might get somewhere.
Ok let's live Legba alone for a while, until he gets out of loop mode.Stop spewing lies and licking each other's dishes and you might get somewhere.
Like I said. Stop licking people's dishes and learn to think for yourself. Basically grow a pair and grow up, instead of waiting for back slaps from your like-minded peers for every dig you manage to get in against those that can think for themselves.Ok let's live Legba alone for a while, until he gets out of loop mode.Stop spewing lies and licking each other's dishes and you might get somewhere.
I haven't said a single lie since the beginning of this thread, stop sucking Legba's dick. Are you part of the same voodoo club or something?
STFU sokarul.I haven't said a single lie since the beginning of this thread
You're lying about your lies now?
Look:At least we went from Legba claiming a rocket and its fuel should be considered the same object and saying Newton's laws disprove the functionality of rockets in a vacuum to Legba at least accepting that they're two objects
^Lie.
Now back to real science:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
STFU.
Back to real science:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
STFU.
Whatever, liar.
Back to real science:
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
PROVES, markjo.
Here is the definition of 'work':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
No work=no force=no movement.
Game fucking over shills.
^Time wasting but un-bannable shill.
Joule free experiment - closed
Rocket - open
Rocket - open system
O rly?
But look:QuoteRocket thrust results from the high speed ejection of material and does not require any medium to "push against". Conservation of momentum dictates that if material is ejected backward, the forward momentum of the remaining rocket must increase since an isolated system cannot change its net momentum.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3
LOL!!!
You hopeless freaks simply cannot get your bullshit straight can you?
Isolated system =/= closed systemNo, an isolated system is a closed one, it's just there are two different ways to define the system,
That is all.
1. All the mass that was originally inside the rocket stays a part of the system. This is a closed system.
2. Once the mass has left the rocket, it leaves the system. This is an open system.
I ask again, why is momentum not conserved?Because there's no such thing as an environment (known to us) that can give rise to conservation of momentum. There will ALWAYS be a resistance to any action/motion.
And the amount of momentum that gets taken away by a resistance gets given to the source of resistance.I ask again, why is momentum not conserved?Because there's no such thing as an environment (known to us) that can give rise to conservation of momentum. There will ALWAYS be a resistance to any action/motion.
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.Does a force pairing exist between the pressurized gas and its vessel?
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.This is a lie, plain and simple.
No work=no force=no movement.So pressure x area is no longer a force?
Papa legba don't you understand that science is built-in machine,one way ticket to meaninglessScience gave us antibiotics. But you just think the life's saved by antibiotics are meaningless don't you.
All what you can do with science is one big delusion, people are slaves of the delusion,the scientists are slaves of the delusion,the entities of this delusion feed us with nothing.
I ask again, why is momentum not conserved?Because there's no such thing as an environment (known to us) that can give rise to conservation of momentum. There will ALWAYS be a resistance to any action/motion.
What will I find if I dare open this post?
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1558 on: Today at 12:04:50 PM »
You are ignoring this user. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1799722#msg1799722)Probably just more "Regurgitated Copy Pasta"!So it's not much point!
STFU it is bullshit proven shill-forum Fuck off; this is all you'll get from now on:
Game fucking over shills.
So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
Water is a medium, so why wouldn't it work?So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
Fuel and oxidizer does not burn in free fall?
How about under water?
Do you mean that water talks to dead spirits?
Do you mean that water talks to dead spirits?
Not after it just took a bullet.
It's probably a bit pissed off right now.
Do you mean that water talks to dead spirits?
Not after it just took a bullet.
It's probably a bit pissed off right now.
Studies show that 99 out of 100 mediums who took a bullet now require the aid of one of their colleagues to ever talk again.
Do you mean that water talks to dead spirits?
Not after it just took a bullet.
It's probably a bit pissed off right now.
Studies show that 99 out of 100 mediums who took a bullet now require the aid of one of their colleagues to ever talk again.
I suspect that 1 out of 100 are responsible for the shootings.
It actually would fire, since gunpowder is self-oxidizing. So, would it recoil?So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
It wouldn't fire in your space, so it certainly wouldn't recoil.It actually would fire, since gunpowder is self-oxidizing. So, would it recoil?So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
It actualy would fire, but because you are being stingy, I'll modify the question.It wouldn't fire in your space, so it certainly wouldn't recoil.It actually would fire, since gunpowder is self-oxidizing. So, would it recoil?So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
Nope. The ball bearing would be sitting at the end of the spring inside the gun.It actualy would fire, but because you are being stingy, I'll modify the question.It wouldn't fire in your space, so it certainly wouldn't recoil.It actually would fire, since gunpowder is self-oxidizing. So, would it recoil?So far, Papa definitely doesn't understand Newton's third law. And I am not sure if it will be possible to teach him. Maybe if we do it in small steps...No it wouldn't. It wouldn't even fire.
Papa Legba, if you were to fire a gun in space, would it recoil?
If you were to fire a spring-loaded ball bearing in space, would your gun recoil?
So you are saying springs won't work in space either?
So you are saying springs won't work in space either?Realistically, if space was what you said then nothing would work in it. However I'm allowing you the fantasy of space being a sort of workable vacuum.
Seriously take time out to think on it.
Imagine you supposedly floating in space and opposite you is your friend. You both face each other with palms touching each others palms with elbows bent.
You now try to push each other away.
Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.But your friend would only be a resisting force against you if he has leverage.
Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.For some odd reason or other, Scepti thinks that resistance initiates motion rather than inhibits it. I guess Scepti has his own unique concept of resistance too.
Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.But your friend would only be a resisting force against you if he has leverage.
Imagine you and your friend sitting or standing on a floor. Your leverage is the atmosphere clamping you to the floor. Basically the friction of your feet and the atmosphere around you means you have LEVERAGE against your friends resistant leverage and vice versa.
You can now both exert arm energy to PUSH each other away with a certain amount of force because you have that friction grip of the floor.
In your space you have absolutely none of this, other than your bent arms against each other. You both cannot exert any pushing force to propel you away from each other. All you can do is straighten your arms out against each other and that's it.
You go nowhere and you can at best end up with touching middle fingers because that's your lot for effort.
Basically you cancel each other out and that applies to ANYTHING in your space.
So you are saying springs won't work in space either?Realistically, if space was what you said then nothing would work in it. However I'm allowing you the fantasy of space being a sort of workable vacuum.
Yeah I know it's nonsense but there you go.
Anyway you have no atmospheric force nor resistance, just the force of the spring and the ball bearing.
All the spring can do is recoil but the ball bearing simply moves with the spring. It stays on that spring.
All you end up with is a longer spring with a ball bearing on the end.
Nothing goes anywhere.
Confused?
Imagine you supposedly floating in space and opposite you is your friend. You both face each other with palms touching each others palms with elbows bent.
You now try to push each other away.
You find that you both manage to extend your arms to their full stretch but end up with palms touching , only this time with extended arms. Why?
Because neither of you have any leverage to do anything other than that. You both have nothing to resist your pushes so you get no leverage for your energy.
You don't gain motion without leverage. If you can, then tell me how you think it can be done. Try not to use magic.Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.For some odd reason or other, Scepti thinks that resistance initiates motion rather than inhibits it. I guess Scepti has his own unique concept of resistance too.
I know you don't. That is the point of Newton's first law. What you are confused about is that Anything with mass can be used as leverage. Air, water, your friend. It doesn't matter.You don't gain motion without leverage. If you can, then tell me how you think it can be done. Try not to use magic.Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.For some odd reason or other, Scepti thinks that resistance initiates motion rather than inhibits it. I guess Scepti has his own unique concept of resistance too.
It doesn't matter what mass it is if there's no leverage.I know you don't. That is the point of Newton's first law. What you are confused about is that Anything with mass can be used as leverage. Air, water, your friend. It doesn't matter.You don't gain motion without leverage. If you can, then tell me how you think it can be done. Try not to use magic.Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.For some odd reason or other, Scepti thinks that resistance initiates motion rather than inhibits it. I guess Scepti has his own unique concept of resistance too.
You don't gain motion without leverage. If you can, then tell me how you think it can be done. Try not to use magic.
Imagine you supposedly floating in space and opposite you is your friend. You both face each other with palms touching each others palms with elbows bent.
You now try to push each other away.
You find that you both manage to extend your arms to their full stretch but end up with palms touching , only this time with extended arms. Why?
mass is worth a toss. Why can't an astronaut go outside the ISS, grab it, then move it to his other side? It is because the ISS has much more mass, so instead, the astronaut would move himself around. Another example, there is so much more recoil when you fire a buckshot round then when you fire a 9mm pistol. Because the buckshot has more mass than the 9mm bullet.It doesn't matter what mass it is if there's no leverage.I know you don't. That is the point of Newton's first law. What you are confused about is that Anything with mass can be used as leverage. Air, water, your friend. It doesn't matter.You don't gain motion without leverage. If you can, then tell me how you think it can be done. Try not to use magic.Scepti, that makes no sense. Of course you have something to resist your push, it's your friend.For some odd reason or other, Scepti thinks that resistance initiates motion rather than inhibits it. I guess Scepti has his own unique concept of resistance too.
They even mess that up in the fake space station.
Can you remember the person with the weights showing us that mass is not worth a toss?
Remember the woman with the hair strand showing us that anything can be moved.
I mean, it was all fake but the crux of the matter is, they use it when they dismiss it when they feel the need and use it whenever they get stumped with space movement in a vacuum, as they tell us.
No leverage = no movement no matter what.
Your earlier post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1800699#msg1800699) seemed to acknowledge that there would be motion of both people, up to the point that their arms are fully extended:They have no leverage to push each other away from each other, except the the length of their arms to fingertips. They stay at arms or fingertip length from each other, whether that's by touching fingertips or looking at each other with arms by their sides at arms length distance from each other.
What stops this motion? Things that are moving keep moving unless something stops them. We know this from everyday experience.To accelerate something you need a force. You need a friction or a leverage. You do not have that in your space.
mass is worth a toss.In atmosphere it is. Not in your space.
Why can't an astronaut go outside the ISS, grab it, then move it to his other side?Because the ISS does not exist. The large pool model of a supposed space station exists and is again in water that is against atmosphere, so mass is relevant. Just not in your space.
It is because the ISS has much more mass, so instead, the astronaut would move himself around.
Another example, there is so much more recoil when you fire a buckshot round then when you fire a 9mm pistol. Because the buckshot has more mass than the 9mm bullet.No problem because it's recoil is in atmosphere, not in your space.
Newton's second law.
I'll repeat what I said earlier. The atmosphere is just a bunch of molecules. Your friend is also a bunch of molecules. What is so special about the atmosphere's molecules?mass is worth a toss.In atmosphere it is. Not in your space.Why can't an astronaut go outside the ISS, grab it, then move it to his other side?Because the ISS does not exist. The large pool model of a supposed space station exists and is again in water that is against atmosphere, so mass is relevant. Just not in your space.
It is because the ISS has much more mass, so instead, the astronaut would move himself around.Another example, there is so much more recoil when you fire a buckshot round then when you fire a 9mm pistol. Because the buckshot has more mass than the 9mm bullet.No problem because it's recoil is in atmosphere, not in your space.
Newton's second law.
What would happen, then if you and your friend pulled back in? Connected by only your fingertips? There is no leverage, so they definitely wouldn't come back together.Once you stretch out there's no coming back. that's it. You stay where you are.
Your earlier post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1800699#msg1800699) seemed to acknowledge that there would be motion of both people, up to the point that their arms are fully extended:They have no leverage to push each other away from each other, except the the length of their arms to fingertips. They stay at arms or fingertip length from each other, whether that's by touching fingertips or looking at each other with arms by their sides at arms length distance from each other.
What stops this motion? Things that are moving keep moving unless something stops them. We know this from everyday experience.To accelerate something you need a force. You need a friction or a leverage. You do not have that in your space.
And what if you grab their hand, and pull back in? There is still "no leverage" as you would say, so do your hands phase through eachother?What would happen, then if you and your friend pulled back in? Connected by only your fingertips? There is no leverage, so they definitely wouldn't come back together.Once you stretch out there's no coming back. that's it. You stay where you are.
How do you grab their hand when you are fingertip to fingertip?And what if you grab their hand, and pull back in? There is still "no leverage" as you would say, so do your hands phase through eachother?What would happen, then if you and your friend pulled back in? Connected by only your fingertips? There is no leverage, so they definitely wouldn't come back together.Once you stretch out there's no coming back. that's it. You stay where you are.
Right before you become fingertip to fingertip, you grab hands, then pull back in.How do you grab their hand when you are fingertip to fingertip?And what if you grab their hand, and pull back in? There is still "no leverage" as you would say, so do your hands phase through eachother?What would happen, then if you and your friend pulled back in? Connected by only your fingertips? There is no leverage, so they definitely wouldn't come back together.Once you stretch out there's no coming back. that's it. You stay where you are.
What would happen, then if you and your friend pulled back in? Connected by only your fingertips? There is no leverage, so they definitely wouldn't come back together.Once you stretch out there's no coming back. that's it. You stay where you are.
No, once they start moving they keep moving, Newton's First Law, also common sense and observation.You show me where you observed this happening?
Once an ice skater starts moving, with very little friction between skates and the ice they keep moving for a long distance.They keep moving for a long distance because they had leverage to gain the motion against friction. Take a look at how an ice skater gains acceleration.
In the absence of friction (or other forces) once an object starts moving, it keeps moving!And I'll say again. How do you get something to move in a frictionless environment. It cannot be done. It's just fantasy for crying out loud.
Can you tell me how you reached those stupid self contradicting conclusions?By having the ability not to act robotic and swallow the utter tripe that's dished out for the crap you buy into readily and eagerly.
No, once they start moving they keep moving, Newton's First Law, also common sense and observation.You show me where you observed this happening?
In the absence of friction (or other forces) once an object starts moving, it keeps moving!And I'll say again. How do you get something to move in a frictionless environment. It cannot be done. It's just fantasy for crying out loud.
Throw something. It doesn't stop moving as soon as it leaves your hand, it keeps moving until it hits something solid.So we're talking about your frictionless space and you come back with throwing something in an atmosphere?
In your example of two people pushing each other in space, you acknowledged (I think) that they do start to move up to the point where they are at arms length. So given that they have started to move, what will stop them moving?
To stop them moving requires a force and there's no force available in the vacuum of space so they will move apart forever.
Can you tell me how you reached those stupid self contradicting conclusions?By having the ability not to act robotic and swallow the utter tripe that's dished out for the crap you buy into readily and eagerly.
Oh and there's nothing self contradicting. They're just words you people use to somehow make out that you're smart. You're gullible and naive in the extreme. You people are close to beyond help in terms of ability to think for yourselves.
.
I'm bored with you. You disappear from this point on. Whine away all you want but you can spend it trying to do it with others. Not me.Can you tell me how you reached those stupid self contradicting conclusions?By having the ability not to act robotic and swallow the utter tripe that's dished out for the crap you buy into readily and eagerly.
Oh and there's nothing self contradicting. They're just words you people use to somehow make out that you're smart. You're gullible and naive in the extreme. You people are close to beyond help in terms of ability to think for yourselves.
.
So you can't tell me. You could have just said that your self contradictory ideas have no foundation and you have no reason to believe them.
Throw something. It doesn't stop moving as soon as it leaves your hand, it keeps moving until it hits something solid.So we're talking about your frictionless space and you come back with throwing something in an atmosphere?
Ok, show me where you can throw something in an atmosphere where it will just keep going without something arresting its motion.
Also show me an environment like your space where you can actually throw something that will somehow keep moving away from you forever.
I was illustrating that our general experience is that moving things keep moving until something stops them. Why should it be any different in space? Is it the atmosphere that keeps things moving?Yes it's the atmosphere that keeps things moving. In conjunction with energy applied to keep whatever object is moving against CONSTANT friction for and against. It has to be like this for anything to move.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I agree that things stop moving when other things get in their way.As I said, there's always something getting in the way. It doesn't have to be a solid object to our vision. Just atmospheric friction stops all objects.
If there's nothing to stop something moving, it will keep moving forever.This is fantasy land or space or whatever you want it to be.
The reality of space is such that it will run into something else eventually, but that doesn't negate the point.There is no reality of space but the space that was made up for people like you...and me at one time.
I was illustrating that our general experience is that moving things keep moving until something stops them. Why should it be any different in space? Is it the atmosphere that keeps things moving?Yes it's the atmosphere that keeps things moving. In conjunction with energy applied to keep whatever object is moving against CONSTANT friction for and against. It has to be like this for anything to move.
There is never any free movement...EVER.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I agree that things stop moving when other things get in their way.As I said, there's always something getting in the way. It doesn't have to be a solid object to our vision. Just atmospheric friction stops all objects.
If there's nothing to stop something moving, it will keep moving forever.This is fantasy land or space or whatever you want it to be.
For nothing to stop something moving means there's nothing to start it moving. Get your head around it and you'll understand it.
I'm bored with you. You disappear from this point on. Whine away all you want but you can spend it trying to do it with others. Not me.Can you tell me how you reached those stupid self contradicting conclusions?By having the ability not to act robotic and swallow the utter tripe that's dished out for the crap you buy into readily and eagerly.
Oh and there's nothing self contradicting. They're just words you people use to somehow make out that you're smart. You're gullible and naive in the extreme. You people are close to beyond help in terms of ability to think for yourselves.
.
So you can't tell me. You could have just said that your self contradictory ideas have no foundation and you have no reason to believe them.
And I'll just add this:They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?
Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.
They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
And I'll just add this:They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?
Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.
Burning fuel into atmosphere.They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
Vertical push by what?
Burning fuel into atmosphere.
I will ask this again, scepti.Nothing. They're all part of our living organisms on Earth in our cell.
What is so special about the molecules in the atmosphere rather than the molecules in everything else?
Why can leverage only be gained from the fluid atmosphere rather than a solid surface, like your friend?Leverage can be gained from any medium, whether that's water, atmosphere or solids. It just can't happen in your space vacuum.
Also, what are the laws of physics in your model? Since you obviously don't follow Newton's laws.For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the DENPRESSURE law.
I have asked you this 3 times now, and you haven't given an answer, so I can only assume that you have no idea what you are talking about and are too closed-minded to allow reason to win in your mind.Assume what you want but take notice of what's being said in the first place , then you will have no need to type the above.
How in the hell can you test a vacuum engine inside a vacuum chamber without it ceasing to become a vacuum chamber?And I'll just add this:They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?
Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.
Apart from air density at 80,000 metres is over 1 hundred thousand times less than ground level.
All vacuum engines are tested in vacuum chambers. And they all give out more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere.
Do you know what back draft is? If you do then explain it in your own words in simple form. Explain why it happens.Burning fuel into atmosphere.
The burning fuel is what pushes them? Or the atmosphere?
Do you know what back draft is? If you do then explain it in your own words in simple form. Explain why it happens.
Do you know what back draft is? If you do then explain it in your own words in simple form. Explain why it happens.Burning fuel into atmosphere.
The burning fuel is what pushes them? Or the atmosphere?
How in the hell can you test a vacuum engine inside a vacuum chamber without it ceasing to become a vacuum chamber?And I'll just add this:They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?
Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.
Apart from air density at 80,000 metres is over 1 hundred thousand times less than ground level.
All vacuum engines are tested in vacuum chambers. And they all give out more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere.
Also, what the hell is a vacuum engine?
What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.
What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.
I seriously doubt that you people know what thrust is. That's why I ask the question.What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.
You should offer up some gold nuggets to anyone who can teach you something.
Then we can all laugh at you the way we laugh at Hiawa. :P
Unbelievably contradicting.How in the hell can you test a vacuum engine inside a vacuum chamber without it ceasing to become a vacuum chamber?And I'll just add this:They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?
Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.
Apart from air density at 80,000 metres is over 1 hundred thousand times less than ground level.
All vacuum engines are tested in vacuum chambers. And they all give out more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere.
Also, what the hell is a vacuum engine?
What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.
They have tested a variety of rocket engines at plumb brook. It is the largest vacuum chamber in the world. Used to test rockets at simulated altitude and has been used to test rockets in a vacuum aswell.
Thrust is equal to:
F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae
m dot=mass flow rate
ve=exhaust velocity
pe=exhaust pressure
po=Atmospheric pressure
Ae=Area
The main reason it functions better in a vacuum is. Ve (exhaust velocity) There is no/little back pressure restriction on the exhaust so exhaust mass can flow easier and faster in a vacuum resulting in a higher thrust.
The reason why it is called a vacuum engine is the Ae or (nozzle area) is much larger than an atmospheric engine. The reasoning is because a rocket nozzle is most efficent when nozzle pressure is equal to external (atmospheric pressure). They are designed to have the largest area nozzle possible without adding too much mass to the craft in a vacuum situation. This is to keep the nozzle pressure as close to zero and as efficient as it possibly can in a vacuum.
Unbelievably contradicting.How in the hell can you test a vacuum engine inside a vacuum chamber without it ceasing to become a vacuum chamber?And I'll just add this:They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?
Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.
Apart from air density at 80,000 metres is over 1 hundred thousand times less than ground level.
All vacuum engines are tested in vacuum chambers. And they all give out more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere.
Also, what the hell is a vacuum engine?
What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.
They have tested a variety of rocket engines at plumb brook. It is the largest vacuum chamber in the world. Used to test rockets at simulated altitude and has been used to test rockets in a vacuum aswell.
Thrust is equal to:
F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae
m dot=mass flow rate
ve=exhaust velocity
pe=exhaust pressure
po=Atmospheric pressure
Ae=Area
The main reason it functions better in a vacuum is. Ve (exhaust velocity) There is no/little back pressure restriction on the exhaust so exhaust mass can flow easier and faster in a vacuum resulting in a higher thrust.
The reason why it is called a vacuum engine is the Ae or (nozzle area) is much larger than an atmospheric engine. The reasoning is because a rocket nozzle is most efficent when nozzle pressure is equal to external (atmospheric pressure). They are designed to have the largest area nozzle possible without adding too much mass to the craft in a vacuum situation. This is to keep the nozzle pressure as close to zero and as efficient as it possibly can in a vacuum.
I seriously doubt that you people know what thrust is. That's why I ask the question.What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.
You should offer up some gold nuggets to anyone who can teach you something.
Then we can all laugh at you the way we laugh at Hiawa. :P
I don't expect the likes of you to grasp any of it. You're just a clown.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the DENPRESSURE law.What does "equal and opposite" mean in 3(4?)-dimensional space?
I moved this because he is right that the topic is neither debate or directly FET related, and seems to mostly be a way to harrass him.
Awww fuck off ski, you're killing the fun!
Maybe someday you guys will give up on trying to bait a troll and then have an intelligent debate? I'm talking about the stupid poll, that was just asking for nonsense.
Maybe someday you guys will give up on trying to bait a troll and then have an intelligent debate? I'm talking about the stupid poll, that was just asking for nonsense.
Me?? Asking for nonsense on a flat earth website?? Never...