The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: disputeone on May 14, 2016, 04:38:32 AM

Title: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2016, 04:38:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2016, 07:37:11 PM
Nothing to say Papa?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 08:26:44 PM
Hi, could you please put a link to the relevant post/thread? I am sure the answer to the poll would be a "no", but I want to make an informed decision. After all, that's what makes REers different from FE trolls.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2016, 09:26:54 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.0)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 09:34:26 PM
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)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2016, 10:16:52 PM
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)

Perpetual motion paradox resolved wooooooo
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 10:38:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2016, 11:12:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 12:34:12 AM
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?

LMFAO!!!

Comedy Gold...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 12:57:41 AM
You read the OP right?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 01:01:45 AM
You clearly didn'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.


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.

LOL!!!

Maybe you are a Satanist after all; you certainly seem to share their obsession with 'inversion'...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 01:09:18 AM
Is this you admitting you're wrong?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 01:17:19 AM
Is this you admitting you're wrong?

So you are using the old satanic 'inversion' schtick?

Although you are very bad at it indeed.

This is why Intelligence Agencies created all that occult guff btw; cos it's a good way to recruit, train & blackmail agents.

Anyhoo; read 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.


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.

Better get a few more of your sock-puppets to vote against me, Loser; cos you just blew it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 01:29:22 AM
The count is getting rather high and one sided.

Please show where I "blew it".
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 01:33:37 AM
Also what do you mean by Inversion?

Inversion
noun

1.

an act or instance of inverting.

2.

the state of being inverted.

3.

anything that is inverted.

4.

Rhetoric. reversal of the usual or natural order of words;anastrophe.

5.

Grammar. any change from a basic word order orsyntactic sequence, as in the placement of a subjectafter an auxiliary verb in a question or after the verb in anexclamation, as “When will you go?” and “How beautifulis the rose!”.

6.

Anatomy, Pathology. the turning inward of a part, as thefoot.

7.

Chemistry.a hydrolysis of certain carbohydrates, as cane sugar,that results in a reversal of direction of the rotatorypower of the carbohydrate solution, the plane ofpolarized light being bent from right to left or viceversa.a reaction in which a starting material of one opticalconfiguration forms a product of the oppositeconfiguration.

8.

Music.the process or result of transposing the tones of aninterval or chord so that the original bass becomes anupper voice.(in counterpoint) the transposition of the upper voicepart below the lower, and vice versa.presentation of a melody in contrary motion to itsoriginal form.

9.

Psychiatry. assumption of the sexual role of the oppositesex; homosexuality.

10.

Genetics. a type of chromosomal aberration in which theposition of a segment of the chromosome is changed insuch a way that the linear order of the genes is reversed.

Compare chromosomal aberration.

11.

Phonetics. retroflexion (def 3).

12.

Also called atmospheric inversion, temperature inversion. Meteorology. a reversal in the normaltemperature lapse rate, the temperature rising withincreased elevation instead of falling.

13.

Electricity. a converting of direct current into alternatingcurrent.

14.

Mathematics. the operation of forming the inverse of apoint, curve, function, etc.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 01:43:33 AM
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???/?//?

You dick.

Also what do you mean by Inversion?

LOL!!!

A satanist that doesn't understand Inversion?

What a noob!

Just admit you lost & piss off, eh?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 01:50:59 AM
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???/?//?

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.

Or try my direct line on ext666
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Empirical on May 15, 2016, 02:21:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 02:23:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 02:25:05 AM
Thanks for the clarification anyway i forget how easily things get taken out of context here.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Empirical on May 15, 2016, 02:38:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 15, 2016, 03:50:37 AM
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.

I've got some good advice when you say "We can't tell what is going on in Papa's head, we can only guess."
Please, if you value your sanity, don't even try to guess!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 05:22:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 15, 2016, 06:01:27 AM
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?
"Pretty simple stuff..." Yup, this rockety stuff is pretty simple stuff! It's not rocket science is it?

Well, I understand it perfectly, it's not my fault that Papa Legba hasn't a clue!

"This is all I'm going to do in this thread btw..." The best news I've heard all week!

Another of these "force pairs": A rocket ejects mass out the back and the force required to do that pushes the rocket forward! QED
Of course, as The(great)Engineer once said (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=9767;type=avatar)
"Momentum, conservation of.
The end. 
Turn off the lights and lock the thread."
gives us the same result.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 06:16:11 AM
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...

Now go get some sleep.

Remember to take an Immodium first so you don't shit the bed during your booze-fuelled nightmares.

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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 06:29:02 AM
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...

Quote from: Papa Legba
I understand it perfectly

It's just that you clearly don't, reminds me of a child putting their fingers in their ears and yelling because they're being told something they don't want to hear.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 07:08:35 AM
It's just that you clearly don't

I clearly do.

And I clearly do not care what a whining, fake satanist, sock-puppet shill says about this fact.

Plus, what time is it in Oz right now?

Read again, please, & do try to comprehend:

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.



Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 07:10:52 AM
I'm really upsetting you arent I?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 08:28:24 AM
I'm really upsetting you arent I?

LOL!!!

Invert them Facts, Satanic Mini-Me; Make Your feeble shill Will Manifest!

Plus, what time is it in Oz right now?

Read, please, & do try to comprehend this time; Newton's 3rd isn't that hard:

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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 15, 2016, 08:34:18 AM
Papa "can't make a proper rebuttal" Legba strikes again.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 09:09:26 AM
Papa "can't make a proper rebuttal" Legba strikes again.

There is no 'rebuttal' to be made, socky-boy...

There is only Newton's 3rd, which you either understand or you do not.

Look, here it is:

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 feel free to 'rebut' the above, though, if you wish...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 15, 2016, 12:15:15 PM
Can everyone please stop? Legba wants attention, when he stops getting it he will fuck off back to his cave, just like the last time. Devoting a thread to him won't help.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 01:06:56 PM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 15, 2016, 01:26:21 PM
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!

It's amusing that the guy with the voodoo username is trying to use "satanist" as an insult against others. 

Do you really think that a gun fired in a vacuum will have no recoil? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Do you really think that a gun fired in a vacuum will have no recoil?

Getting desperate?

Derailing will not be accepted, Sir Liesalot.

For what is the title of the thread?

Hmm?

Please read, & try to understand:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2016, 04:18:42 PM
15 to one says you dont.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 15, 2016, 11:36:32 PM
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 understand the above perfectly.

Do you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 12:34:41 AM
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?

Well I've been trying to explain.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 16, 2016, 12:35:34 AM
15 to one says you dont.
I'm struggling to work out who voted "yes", any ideas?
Surely no-one would be silly enough to think Papa Legba had any idea of even who Newton was!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 12:40:50 AM
*Yawn!*

As ever, you are all reduced to playing with words & artificially-contrived peer-pressure to push your bullshit.

Here is Newton's 3rd Law again; please read & try to understand:

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?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 12:58:17 AM
Yes I do. And no Papa Legba, you don't. It is based on this.
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 01:21:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 01:28:06 AM
Cool story, but it seems to be in accordance with the dictates of Newton's 2nd alone than with the following:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 01:51:51 AM
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, it is very much in accordance with Newton's 3rd law of motion too. You can have both working together, you know. That is, if you understand them, of course.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 02:46:55 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 16, 2016, 03:09:09 AM
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?

Stuff cannot come out of a rocket and unless something pushes on it.  Otherwise newtons laws are wrong.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 03:14:40 AM
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.

LOL!!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 03:26:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 03:39:00 AM
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?

He sure can. After all, he understands Newton's third law perfectly. That should be a super easy question for someone with perfect understanding, right Papa?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 03:45:18 AM
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?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 03:48:47 AM
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?

See, disputeone, he understands it perrrrrfectly! Hahaha LMFAO ;D ;D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 03:51:00 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 03:57:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:00:19 AM
*Yawn!*

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 04:04:00 AM
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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:06:43 AM
If you lot are so clever why did you post this 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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 04:08:18 AM
Awww... Isn't Legba so cute? See how perrrrrfectly he understands Newton's 3rd law? Well, his 3 year old mind thinks that the rocket fuel has no mass or that it's the same object as the rocket, or that it is pulled out of it by some magical force without a reaction, but other than that he understands it. How well?

perrrrrfectly
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 04:12:35 AM
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

I actually burst out laughing.

This thread is over Papa please stop flaunting your ignorance.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 04:16:14 AM
Nope, not over yet. Papa's probably gonna post another copy of Newton's third law. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:20:52 AM
Papa's probably gonna post another copy of Newton's third law.

LOL!!!

What's the thread about you dick?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:21:33 AM
If you lot are so clever why did you post this 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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 04:28:58 AM
I think you haven't copied and pasted that nearly enough times, just do it 100 more times and I'll be convinced.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:31:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 04:36:16 AM
Well done, now all you have to do is do that 99 more times, and you'll be fine.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: TheSchwa1337 on May 16, 2016, 04:39:47 AM
15 to one says you dont.
Ahem.
17
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:41:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 04:48:41 AM
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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:51:27 AM
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?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 04:55:25 AM
Papa's probably gonna post another copy of Newton's third law.

LOL!!!

What's the thread about you dick?

Because the thread is "Newtons third law", you need to post Newton's third law over and over again ... Right, that make perrrrfect sense. Go on, 97 more to go, you're almost there Papa.

By the way, this thread
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66759.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66759.0)
is called "Map". When you're done, you can post the definition of map 100 times there, but don't get ahead of yourself. One at a time, you'll get there before you know it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 04:56:02 AM
Yep, 97 more times. Go Legba, make us proud!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 06:11:20 AM
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.

Also, I did warn you; look:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 06:27:29 AM
96 more times Papa.

We believe in you mate.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 06:30:34 AM
We believe in you mate.

Good.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JohnRozz on May 16, 2016, 06:31:41 AM
A FEW FLAT EARTHERS AGAINST THIS:

(https://hebrewsisraelitesvsthereds.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/york-rite-scottish-rite-youth-orders-social-orders-luncheon-clubs-womens-orders-jpg.jpeg)

NO MATTER'S FULL OF ASSHOLES.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 06:32:24 AM
Wow, this is way out of topic
What's the thread about you dick?
yet still on topic at the same time.

Anyway, 95 more, go Papa go!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JohnRozz on May 16, 2016, 06:34:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 06:36:20 AM
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.

Done
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 06:39:14 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 06:46:08 AM
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?

This guy seems to be a bit like that shouty guy who keeps saying the earth is concave, over and over again, on every thread, with all capital letters. I forgot his name but his profile picture looks like this
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Gr-r3gPLVjY/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 07:57:14 AM
Papa, you'd better forget everything "scientific" you know.

Done

OK, this time I have to admit, well played.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 07:58:41 AM
We believe in you mate.

Good.

No, please don't stop now! Only 96 times left!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 16, 2016, 08:37:57 AM
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.

I remember now, his name is The Truth Seeker
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1061428 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1061428)
He kept on posting lines of facts that he believed to be the truth, which was unrelated to the thread or previous posts, instead of engaging a proper discussion (and he used uppercase a lot). Last time I heard of him he was banned for a month back in August last year because of spamming. So, JohnRozz, I think you might want to keep it down a little, and engage with the conversation more? Although the conversation in this thread has been kinda stupid lately.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
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.

Also, I did warn you; look:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2016, 10:58:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 11:53:28 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 11:55:42 AM
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.


Oh look, Legba just turned 12, and he learned what autism is (or at least he thinks he learnt what autism is), and it is now his favorite insult!

Now you only have 95 more times left.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2016, 12:30:22 PM
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?
According to Legba, I have more personalities than Sybil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_%28book%29).
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 02:46:52 PM
You ARE Sybil; Sybil Shepard.

You gave Elvis blow-jobs you hussy!

Also:

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?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 02:04:38 AM
94 times.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 17, 2016, 02:44:03 AM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 05:26:08 AM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?

I'm doing fine, thanks Mr. Howard Beale.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 17, 2016, 12:36:19 PM
Good.

Then we'll begin trying to beat an understanding of N3 into your broken brain again...

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 12:44:48 PM
93 more times, keep going, you can do it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 17, 2016, 01:04:24 PM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 01:10:47 PM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?

You ran out of "witty" comebacks?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2016, 06:21:53 PM
93 more times, keep going, you can do it.

We believe in you Papa.
93 more times and we'll all agree on your interpretation of Newtons third law.

I think.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 17, 2016, 07:52:24 PM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?

You ran out of "witty" comebacks?
You do realise of course that you are talking to the "copy and paste" AI[1] christened "Papa Legba"! [/b
I think the "random number generator" it uses for choosing what ignorance to post got stuck.

[1] A new development,  "Artificial Ignorance", far more ignorant than any human could ever be!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MouseWalker on May 18, 2016, 12:04:21 AM

I am disappointed with my fellow earther’s in they have not challenged Papa Lagba to his understanding of Newtons third law.
We have two Rockets.
Rocket one in the atmosphere the engine burns, and rocket moves; N3 LAW.
Rocket two in outer space the engine burns, and rocket moves; N3 LAW.
True. correct you understand.
False. wrong. If so why?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 18, 2016, 12:35:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 18, 2016, 01:23:23 AM
92 more times. Wow that's truly insane of you, keep going!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 18, 2016, 05:06:12 AM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MouseWalker on May 18, 2016, 09:07:31 AM
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
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

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.
Pertains to the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are not balanced.
The second law states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables
The net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object.
The acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object.
As the force acting upon an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is increased.
As the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is decreased.

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.

Now answer the question.

of Newtons third law.
We have two Rockits
Rocket one in the atmosphere the engine burns, and rocket moves; N3 LAW.
Rocket two in outer space the engine burns, and rocket moves; N3 LAW.
True!
False ? If so why?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 18, 2016, 09:26:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2016, 09:39:19 AM
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.
When you are incapable of a rebuttal, shitpost. Isn't that right papa little baby?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 18, 2016, 09:42:30 AM
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.

Of course, hopefully to make you understand Newton's 3rd law a little bit better. But posting it 100 times works just as well. So, 92 more times Papa, you can do it! After all ...
What's the thread about you dick?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MouseWalker on May 18, 2016, 09:43:43 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 18, 2016, 09:51:54 AM
Two new replies whilst I was typing this one?

Don't be so obvious in your desperation, losers.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 18, 2016, 09:53:02 AM
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.
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.

I'm sure he's not gonna answer properly, he doesn't understand it, well at least he acts not to. According to a poll (guess which ;D), 26 out of 28 people believe that he doesn't. And it's kinda good news, because the more Papa avoids, the stronger it proves that he doesn't understand Newton's 3rd law. Hopefully posting it 100 times will get it covered though.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on May 18, 2016, 09:53:59 AM
Two new replies whilst I was typing this one?

Don't be so obvious in your desperation, losers.

Nah, not desperate, just enjoying it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 18, 2016, 10:23:54 AM
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.
When you are incapable of a rebuttal, shitpost. Isn't that right papa little baby?

It does seem as though that is what you do, but I am not condoning it. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MouseWalker on May 20, 2016, 05:27:27 PM
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.

I see that you are dodging the question.
To me this proves that you do not understand newtons laws.
You might redeem yourself, by giving us examples to prove your point.
For I gave mine, let's see yours.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 20, 2016, 07:33:56 PM
Two new replies whilst I was typing this one?

Don't be so obvious in your desperation, losers.
You just "lurve" skateboards I hear:
Skateboard (http://)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 20, 2016, 10:55:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Stanton on May 20, 2016, 11:21:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 21, 2016, 01:05:32 AM
Enjoying yourself there, Rainman?

Enjoying yourself there, Mr. Howard Beale?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 21, 2016, 01:10:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 21, 2016, 03:27:24 AM
The steam would remain, what's your point?

The Vacuum, if finite would beome less perfect, If the Vacuum is indeed infinite then a finite amount of anything would not have an effect on it, obviously.

Vacuum is space void of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. In engineering and applied physics on the other hand, vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure.[2] The Latin term in vacuo is used to describe an object that is surrounded by a vacuum.

The quality of a partial vacuum refers to how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. Other things equal, lower gas pressure means higher-quality vacuum. For example, a typical vacuum cleaner produces enough suction to reduce air pressure by around 20%.[3] Much higher-quality vacuums are possible. Ultra-high vacuum chambers, common in chemistry, physics, and engineering, operate below one trillionth (10−12) of atmospheric pressure (100 nPa), and can reach around 100 particles/cm3.[4] Outer space is an even higher-quality vacuum, with the equivalent of just a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter on average.[5] According to modern understanding, even if all matter could be removed from a volume, it would still not be "empty" due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics. In the electromagnetism in the 19th century, vacuum was thought to be filled with a medium called aether. In modern particle physics, the vacuum state is considered the ground state of matter.

Vacuum has been a frequent topic of philosophical debate since ancient Greek times, but was not studied empirically until the 17th century. Evangelista Torricelli produced the first laboratory vacuum in 1643, and other experimental techniques were developed as a result of his theories of atmospheric pressure. A torricellian vacuum is created by filling a tall glass container closed at one end with mercury, and then inverting the container into a bowl to contain the mercury.[6]

Vacuum became a valuable industrial tool in the 20th century with the introduction of incandescent light bulbs and vacuum tubes, and a wide array of vacuum technology has since become available. The recent development of human spaceflight has raised interest in the impact of vacuum on human health, and on life forms in general.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 21, 2016, 05:00:17 AM
What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?

The steam would remain

LMFAO!!!

Comedy Gold...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Stanton on May 21, 2016, 05:16:12 AM
Buba Legbone appears to be running out of steam.

What would happen to a finite amount of steam if introduced to an infinite vacuum?



The answer to this question and others could be known to you
through casual education.

Count things on your fingers kind of stuff.


Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 21, 2016, 05:21:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 21, 2016, 05:52:29 AM
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?

To Infinity...

But not Beyond!

The answer to this question and others could be known to you
through casual education.

Count things on your fingers kind of stuff.

What, the kind of 'casual education' that makes you lot think a rocket is somehow two separate objects?

LMAO!!!

Seems counting on your fingers isn't working too well for you.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 21, 2016, 05:54:58 AM
Are you saying the steam dissappears?

Seems like a violation of the conservation of energy to me.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 21, 2016, 07:12:38 AM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Stanton on May 21, 2016, 07:18:34 AM

To Infinity...

But not Beyond!



That's actually pretty funny.  ;D

I don't hate you. You just grate on my nerves.



Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 21, 2016, 08:08:25 AM
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!

Typo, where does the steam go then?  Are you going to clarify or just continue trolling?
Why does my avatar scare you so much?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 21, 2016, 10:48:09 AM
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.

Which is ironic for someone who claims to be a builder.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MouseWalker on May 21, 2016, 12:08:44 PM
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.
still Dodging the question and misdirecting,
I'm game.
=======
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?

To answer the question we must defined the terms.
Infinite vacuum: a volume of space without limits and void of matter.
finite amount of steam: volume of water brought to hundred degrees centigrade at sea level.
Steam?: in a given volume a state of matter between liquid and gas, fewer particles per volume of liquid, more particles per volume then a gas.
hum the barometric pressure would determine the temperature of the steam. In a sense a cloud is steam.
Steam: water vapor suspended in air.
hum? what is the temperature of a vacuum? Absolute zero.
==
By God power, this volume of steam is added to the vacuum.
The local vacuum would longer be a vacuum.
The steam would immediate expand to gas, and continue to expand, polluting the vacuum.
At some point as temperatures reach absolute zero will gravity be sufficient to bring back the particles together, or will it continue to expand?
Infinite vacuum? No, we can now find matter, here and there, but still a vacuum.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 21, 2016, 07:05:32 PM
Seeing a recurring theme from Papa.

Step one: Makes wild assertion.

Step two: Asks open ended questions that are more like riddles.

Step three: Tells the people trying to answer what they think he's asking they're wrong.

Step four: Copy and paste "wrong" answers.

Step five: Never clarify questions or expain his difference in opinion.

Step six: Cries himself to sleep.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 21, 2016, 10:24:49 PM
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...

Where's Wally, retards?

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 21, 2016, 11:03:51 PM
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...
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 21, 2016, 11:28:23 PM
Where's Wally, markjo?

Couldn't find him so you changed the subject, did you?

Where's wally, markjo?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 02:03:39 AM
I know Newton's 3rd Law!
Just for Papa!
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrSmxi7fx3JqgLzOyn8slSEd3jPne55o2Dw_SpEOEt3eIX-yhb4g9IyGjRpA)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2016, 07:19:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 22, 2016, 07:58:05 AM
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.

Where's Wally, markjo?

Do you see him?

I see Wally, markjo!

I see him!

There's Wally markjo!

There he is!

Wally's in the CAR!

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.

LOL!!!

What a retard you are...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2016, 08:07:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 22, 2016, 11:22:45 AM
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?

This 'cracked cuecaine' must be a helluva drug; tell us more about your experiences with it.

As well as your experiences of being a 'Content (i.e. happy) Nazi', Mr. Crack Hitler.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2016, 12:14:49 PM
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?
Yes, because it's the correct way.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 22, 2016, 12:57:39 PM
No it isn't.

It's mad shit you're making up off the top of your head, Mr. Mad Crack Hitler.

Enough of your nonsense; I will now mock you with Freemasonic code-phrases that are way above your initiation level, just because I can...

Do you obey the Thumb of God, Mr. Hard Gay Crack Hitler markjo?

The Thumb of God?

Is it your Master?

Hmm?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 22, 2016, 01:05:33 PM
"Exhaust stacking"

Lol
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2016, 03:24:00 PM
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.

Since the pressure of the burning propellant acts in all directions and there is a hole in the combustion chamber, that would result in an unbalanced force.  An unbalanced force sounds like acceleration to me.

Ask Wally who he agrees with.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 22, 2016, 08:43:51 PM


Check it out Papa, good example of an action reaction force pair in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 22, 2016, 11:33:37 PM
"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.

More mad bullshit you're all pulling out your arses...

Time for further Freemasonic taunting that you're too lowly to understand.

What Locks the Keystone, Losers?

Are your Keystones Locked?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 22, 2016, 11:57:13 PM
If you think it's fake why not do the experiment yourself instead of throwing out masonic phrases you aren't even getting right?

Would make you look much more intelligent.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 23, 2016, 12:14:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 23, 2016, 12:29:22 AM
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?

I do like cats. This question is every bit as relevant as the one about the steam.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 23, 2016, 12:54:33 AM
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...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 23, 2016, 01:12:12 AM
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?

I feel it is quite relevant, the way the bullet propels itself in a vacuum is very similar to how a rocket propels itself.

I sincerely hope you are just quoting youtube videos, also I am not and will never be your "brother".
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 23, 2016, 03:25:44 AM
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...
Don't know why you chose hypergolic propellants?
The most common is Hydrazine with the chemical formula N2H4 with an oxidiser of either nitrogen tetroxide N2O4 or nitric acid HNO3. All very nasty chemicals.

Sure, you'll get some steam, plus lots of other stuff.

These days hyperbolic fuels are used only as igniters for other fuels or in small manoeuvring rockets.

If you want steam as the exhaust why not good old LH2 + LOX - combustion product pure super heated steam.

But of course you couldn't then show off your big words.

Yes the Aeolipile is a beautiful example of a reaction engine demonstrating Newton's 3rd Law nicely.
Smart of you to find it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 23, 2016, 03:32:02 AM
All of which wiki-spam has precisely nothing to do with the behaviour of steam in a vacuum.

So STFU, Geoff.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on May 23, 2016, 04:03:10 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 23, 2016, 04:24:37 AM
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!

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on May 23, 2016, 04:30:53 AM
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!

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.


No idea, but I sometimes wonder if she replies to posts and has to double check that she's not berating herself.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 23, 2016, 06:55:45 AM
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!

No it doesn't, because the Shpayze-Shittle is fake.

And besides, the idea of using LH2 as a fuel is insane...

LOX was bad enough, but LH2?

LOL GTFO!!!

There's slow-motion videos of teh silly fake Shittle's main engine ignition sequence floating around on youtube...

Bet they'll end up flushed down the memory-hole eventually though, as they give away some very important clues as to how the fraud is achieved, as well as what is actually occurring in the nozzle.

But you'd have to understand how a rocket actually works to see those clues, & as you lot are doing your damnedest to stop anybody knowing, maybe we can all watch the fraud forever?

I don't care; I see it clear as day.

Toodle-pip, Geoff & his shitposting sock-farm!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2016, 08:06:52 AM
You just now have a problem with liquid hydrogen?


You suck and blow at trolling.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Empirical on May 23, 2016, 08:31:53 AM
Hydrogen doesn't really burn, have you got evidence that it does. If you think you do, how did you know that what you were burning is really hydrogen, how can you tell that hydrogen even exists.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2016, 08:59:32 AM
Yes

Hydrogen reacts with oxygen to form water. And indeed, water is the byproduct.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 23, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
You just now have a problem with liquid hydrogen?

No, I first mentioned it months ago.

As you are aware.

Quote
You suck and blow at trolling.

You stole that joke from me.

As you are aware.

What strange people you are!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on May 23, 2016, 11:40:14 AM
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...

"For what do Hypergolic rocket propellants produce if not a form of steam?"


Uh... Steam is water... You could just say "gas" or something like that.

"And what was the Aeolipile if not a primitive, fixed, form of steam-rocket?"


Hmmm... So what?

"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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 23, 2016, 12:11:09 PM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 23, 2016, 01:50:34 PM
Papa can you ever stop being a total idiot?

<<fix punctuation!>>
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2016, 02:03:58 PM
You just now have a problem with liquid hydrogen?

No, I first mentioned it months ago.

As you are aware.
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? 

Quote
Quote
You 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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2016, 04:19:13 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 24, 2016, 05:01:43 AM
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. 


Were you the other yes vote jroa? Shouldn't feed the trolls.

Anyway, are we really still here? Papa make a vacuum chamber, do the coke bottle rocket experiment inside, come back and admit you were wrong.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2016, 06:07:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2016, 06:11:50 AM
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.

Are you referring to your gay soccer league as a sporting event? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2016, 06:47:13 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2016, 07:07:22 AM
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.

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.

I think you are trying to dodge the subject of the homosexuality of your soccer buddies by trying to imply that other sports also have homosexual members.  You can't go back into the closet once you come out.  But, that is OK.  We are not homophobic here. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2016, 08:40:40 AM
I actually just ignored your slur as I know you're fat and hate in shape people.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2016, 08:46:10 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2016, 09:14:25 AM
Thanks for derailing the thread.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2016, 09:17:04 AM
Thanks for derailing the thread.

Did I hurt your fragile little feelings? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Göebbels on May 24, 2016, 11:24:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2016, 02:40:01 PM
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.

Please don't hate on the gays, like sokarul.  We absolutely do not tolerate hate mongering.  Take yourself to a NAZI forum if you want to spread your hate and racism. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 25, 2016, 01:42:48 PM
Back to this, that you ran away from:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2016, 02:43:46 PM
Object B is the exhaust.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 25, 2016, 11:42:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on May 26, 2016, 12:56:28 AM
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.

The Saturn V rocket had somewhere in the order of 3 million parts, not including the fuel.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 26, 2016, 01:01:30 AM
The silly fake Saturn V's main engines didn't even have 'combustion chambers'.

They were clearly just movie props, so shut up about how many imaginary parts it was made from, Geoff.

Still desperately 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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on May 26, 2016, 01:11:10 AM
PL, you really are such a child.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 26, 2016, 01:33:24 AM
Whatever; just answer the questions, Geoff:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2016, 05:43:19 AM
Lol Saturn V don't exist?


Lol
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2016, 05:59:27 AM
Lol Saturn V don't exist?
Lol
Maybe you can help "poor Papa". He's looking for Geoff and can't find him anywhere!

But, he says
Quote from: Poppy Leghorn
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?)...
And there hasn't been a Geoff around here for 10 months or so - longer than I've been here.

But, I have looked at earlier posts and no-one ever said that "an Aeolipile would work in a vacuum too". Poppy's simply making that one up (he does that a lot!). I did find the "beautiful example of a reaction engine" bit, but nothing about working in a vacuum.
I thinks he's lost the plot completely now.
Don't know what we can do to put him out of his misery.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 26, 2016, 06:03:35 AM
Nobody cares, Geoff; if the Aeolipile is a 'reaction engine' then it should work in a vacuum according to YOUR mad, drunken theories...

So just answer the questions:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2016, 06:19:04 AM
Nobody cares, Geoff; if the Aeolipile is a 'reaction engine' then it should work in a vacuum according to YOUR mad, drunken theories...

So just answer the questions:

Sorry markjo, there's no Geoff around here to answer.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2016, 06:22:06 AM
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.

Papa Legba is too stupid to understand the difference between the two.

Cos you're straying into Thermodynamics territory now,

And Thermodynamics kills your silly fake 'shpayze-rokkitz' stone dead.
ROTFLMAO!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 26, 2016, 06:30:14 AM
Nobody cares, Geoff/markjo/etc; if the Aeolipile is a 'reaction engine' then it should work in a vacuum according to YOUR mad, drunken theories...

So just answer the questions:

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?

Btw, it's 2.30pm in the UK, so God only knows what time it is in Oz...

Yet Geoff's still here ranting & raving like a mentalist.

Which seems totally normal behaviour, completely legit, etc...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2016, 06:53:13 AM
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.

Why don't you find yourself a large vacuum chamber and give it go?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 26, 2016, 07:24:04 AM
Nobody cares, Geoff/markjo/etc;
Poor Papa Legba is so confused that he doesn't even know who he's ranting at anymore.

You are markjo & 'rabinoz' is Geoff; no confusion there.

No ranting, either; your piss-poor psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting is noted.

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?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2016, 09:27:34 AM
The medicine ball skateboard experiment will clearly work in a vacuum. I'm nits ute why you think physics stops working in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2016, 12:52:09 PM
No ranting, either;
Are you sure about that?

...your piss-poor psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting is noted.

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?
That sounds an awful lot like a rant to me.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 26, 2016, 02:31:18 PM
Being a congenital liar, it would.

Now answer the questions:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2016, 06:24:51 PM
Being a congenital liar, it would.
Being a psycho, it wouldn't.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 26, 2016, 09:06:24 PM
Wow thirty five... Papa you realise the chemical reaction takes place in the rocket engine and not in the vacuum right? The gas being pushed out and rocket being propelled is a by product.

Make a Vacuum chamber, do the coke bottle rocket experiment come back say sorry and I'll keep the ridicule to a minimum I promise.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 27, 2016, 05:33:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 28, 2016, 06:38:52 AM
I have no idea what you madmen are blathering on about now...

Something about a 'shpaayze-rokkkit enjynn' being a sealed unit, perhaps?

Whatever; here is Newton's 3rd Law for you to misinterpret some more:

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 28, 2016, 07:57:07 AM
Object B is the exhaust.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 07:08:56 AM
Nope.

Read 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.


I understand the above perfectly.

Do you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 29, 2016, 07:52:47 AM
You do not understand the text. You think physics stops in a vacuum.  Could the medicine ball skateboard experiment be performed in a vacuum?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 08:04:14 AM
What you wrote has no connection with reality.

This does; you should read 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 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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 29, 2016, 08:05:48 AM
Why are you so scared to answer such an easy question?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 08:26:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 29, 2016, 10:25:19 AM
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.


Something from the source of that quote that Papa Legba obviously didn't bother reading:
Quote from: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
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.

A bit of advice, Papa Legba:  Make sure that your source actually supports your claim.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 11:49:34 AM
It's not my source, dickhead; look who first posted 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 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.

As for this:

d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.

Oh - VERY scientific!

Let's put the Q&A together though - you know, for the lulz?

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.

Even more scientific!

Oh, I'm sure you'll convince a lot of people with that, old man.



Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 29, 2016, 05:03:25 PM
Why are you so scared to answer such an easy question?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 29, 2016, 06:36:05 PM
It's not my source...
Yet you keep repeating it ad nauseam as if you agree with it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hoppy on May 29, 2016, 06:58:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 29, 2016, 07:57:22 PM
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.

Hoppy do the coke bottle rocket experiment, you will need one coke bottle one bike pump one piece of cork and water.

Come back and apologize and I will keep the ridicule to a minimum.

If you believe physics breaks down in a vacuum, then please, perform the experiment in a vacuum chamber and come back with your results.

Edit you need to use scissors and a drill so make sure you ask mum or dad to help you.

Second edit.
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.

So, you were saying?

Isn't this (rockets in a vacuum) easy to prove by experiment?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 29, 2016, 11:33:40 PM
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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 30, 2016, 12:56:38 AM
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.

So 7 pages of this and you still don't understand Newtons third law, well, I tried.

Edit, maybe copying and pasting it another 50 times will make it clearer ;-)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 30, 2016, 12:59:40 AM
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.

Then we can argue about the effect a vacuum has on a rocket.

You have made it abundantly clear you do not understand how a rocket works anywhere.

All you want to do is derail threads and avoid questions, it's obvious you have no interest in propulsion or astronautical engineering.

I have better things to do than feed trolls. Unless you want to pay me 100 AUD an hour to feed you, then I'll consider it
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 30, 2016, 01:04:23 AM
I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.

Good.

See ya!

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.

SCIENCE!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 30, 2016, 01:06:37 AM
Do the experiment Papa, my curiosity would make me test my hypothesis, but I suppose that's why we are so different.

I've got a lot of experience dealing with paranoid delusional disorders, if you ever need to talk PM me.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 30, 2016, 01:45:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 30, 2016, 02:12:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 30, 2016, 02:25:52 AM
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...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 30, 2016, 05:21:45 AM
Why are you so scared to answer such an easy question?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 30, 2016, 09:26:58 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 30, 2016, 10:56:41 AM
I'll take whatever quote I want from whatever post I find it in, you silly little man.

If you don't like it then report me...

See how far that gets you, eh?

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:

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.

Yeah - SCIENCE!

Oh, & don't forget; the wheels are Object B...

(says the retard).

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 30, 2016, 03:09:56 PM
I'll take whatever quote I want from whatever post I find it in, you silly little man.

If you don't like it then report me...
It's not a matter of any rule violation, it's a matter of intellectual integrity.

Then again, you wouldn't know much about that, would you, Mr. voodou loa?

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:

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 have a problem with the wording of that statement, then take it with the Physics Classroom web site.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 12:18:14 AM
Need a new diaper again old man?

You seem to be leaking all over this thread...

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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 02:51:36 AM
Quote
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.  ???
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 31, 2016, 02:54:55 AM
I just wonder where Papa Legba got all this knowledge making him and him alone the repository[1] of this information that goes against all the world's rocket experts from Konstantin E. TsiolkovskyRobert H. Goddard and Wernher von Braun not to mention the work of Gustaf de Laval for his work on the type of exhaust nozzle used on most rockets.

This nozzle, once "choked" completely isolates the combustion chamber from the outside pressure. The de Laval Nozzle relies on properties of supersonic flow that Papa seems quite ignorant of. Anyone with any knowledge of rocket engines knows that they give considerably more thrust in a vacuum than at sea-level.
That's not real complicated physics, just a bit of elementary rocket science.

Papa claims that they will not have any thrust in a vacuum, but is so ignorant that he can't tell us how to calculate the low pressure that fail at.

Papa 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!
Maybe we should all learn this new revolutionary Papa Physics, but I've never seen any books on it. Maybe it's all locked away in the secret X-files.

[1] I nearly said suppository, but that would give too much of a clue as to the source his great wisdom.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 03:09:40 AM
So birds detach their wings and launch them away from themselves at high velocity now.

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.

Blah, waffle, pompous tl;dr bullshit...

Tsiolkovsky was a madman whose 'rocket equation' bears no relation to reality whatsoever, Goddard was a delusional fraud & choked-flow nozzles are irrelevant as thrust is created at the exit of the nozzle, not in the combustion chamber.

Try again, friend of Dorothy.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 03:31:07 AM
You think that the exhaust doesn't move away from the rocket. That explains a lot.

The exhaust does move away from the rocket, exhaust is constantly being released from the rocket.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 03:59:21 AM
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.

That's a keeper

Do the coke bottle water and air pressure rocket Papa, for the love of science man.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on May 31, 2016, 04:01:36 AM
You claim that a rocket will not have any thrust in a vacuum, but you can't tell us how to calculate the altitude that it will fail.

Papa 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!
Maybe we should all learn this new revolutionary Papa Physics, but I've never seen any books on it. Maybe it's all locked away in the secret X-files.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 05:02:08 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on May 31, 2016, 05:47:03 AM
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?

Object B is the exhaust.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 06:06:31 AM
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 thing I think you're missing, is that a bird and a rocket lift off the ground with different methods.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 06:47:48 AM
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.

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?
No, a rocket engine and a reaction mass of burning propellant.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 08:20:23 AM
^Says the retards...

You really are beyond help, aintcha?

Please to be reading & making understandings for purpose of retardation alleviating please:

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 08:44:35 AM
^Says the retards...
Well, if you consider every physicist in the world to be a retard...  Then yeah...  Whatever. ::)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
^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...  ::) ::)

Watch as they all wait patiently for the brainwashed retard to go away so they can get on with talking about REAL aerospace engineering again...  ::) ::) ::)

Realise none of them believe this shpayze-shite...  ::) ::) ::) ::)

Except for mighty markjo29000 & his sock-tard shill army...  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 12:50:51 PM
^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...  ::) ::)

Do you mean a forum like this one?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/

Or this one?
http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=31
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 12:56:55 PM
LMFAO!!!

No.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 12:59:19 PM
Then what aerospace engineering forum do you suggest?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 01:05:53 PM
One where they understand this & don't believe I was born yesterday, you clapped-out old shit-at-your-shit-job spook:

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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 01:12:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 01:33:57 PM
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?

What a Loser you are, markjo; you are old & past it & just an empty squawking box of a thing...

You have all the advantages here on your own turf yet I beat you like a gong every single time...

If this was IRL you'd be dead at my feet....

You'd be my trophy.

I know this will upset what's left of your 'soldierly' pride btw...

Which is why I say it.

Semper Fi, you sad little man; Semper Fi...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 02:25:50 PM
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
Says the person that thinks birds launch their wings away from themselves at high velocity.  ::)

Where did I say one force, rocket pushs exhaust away (force one) which causes the exhaust to push on rocket (force two). Maybe you should learn to count.

Oh wait I forgot, a force can't exist when one object is inside the other, like when you are in a house, since you're inside it you are the same object as the house, so you can't push of the ground to walk, because that would mean a force pair with only one object, so you are just stuck to the ground. Popa pysics!!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: nexzus on May 31, 2016, 03:09:44 PM
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.

Heh. Check out the page he copied his entry from:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
or perhaps
http://education.jlab.org/jsat/powerpoint/newtons_laws_of_motion.ppt (http://education.jlab.org/jsat/powerpoint/newtons_laws_of_motion.ppt)
or
http://bloddymakersofscience.blogspot.ca/2015/05/newtons-laws.html (http://bloddymakersofscience.blogspot.ca/2015/05/newtons-laws.html)

and the "check your understanding section", specifically question 2. (or the 33rd slide of the Powerpoint)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 03:49:16 PM
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....


Psycho.....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48790.0

Cool story bro, you're not the only one who doesn't understand action reaction force pairs apparently.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 04:31:45 PM
Quote
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.

From the website i posted.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 04:55:41 PM
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.
Ooh...  Papa Legba is involved in the deep, dark aerospace engineering underground.  How scary.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 08:03:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2016, 08:06:17 PM
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.
Yes, because intelligence agencies wouldn't know how to find an aerospace engineer discussion forum on their own.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 08:24:30 PM
I'm just guessing, but i think he was bluffing xD.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 10:46:54 PM
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.

And no, I won't tell you where to find their hangouts.

And yes, markjo is an obvious spook.

Back to this:

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...

Toodle-pip, Losers!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 11:20:56 PM

And yes, every good aerospace engineer knows NASA is fake.


I'll have to tell the ones I know they aren't "good".

Edit, I'm sure I read somewhere you are a builder, hit any good bits of metal with smaller bits of metal recently?

Anyway, cool story bro.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 05:03:12 AM
Even after you edited that post it was still complete nonsense...

You are just useless ain't you?

Anyhoo; here's YOUR OP, with the definition of N3 that YOU provided, but which I have so skilfully used against you that you now wish to say it was MY definition all along, & provide a new definition more suited to your disinf-agenda:

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.

Plus, you do not know any aerospace engineers...

Just like you are not a practising Satanist with a mentally-ill mother.

You are simply another insane sock-puppet shill & everybody knows it.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 01, 2016, 05:22:03 AM
What part of all the posts containing newton's 3rd law says rockets can't work in a vacuum?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 01, 2016, 06:31:37 AM
But I am a real man, I hit bits of metal, with smaller bits, of metal.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 01, 2016, 06:32:46 AM
Calling me insane is so rich coming from you.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 01, 2016, 06:41:05 AM
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.
No one is denying that entry of N3.  We're just wondering how it proves that rocket engines can't work in a vacuum.

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!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 08:50:57 AM
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.

You're pretending I haven't though.

And yes, markjo, you are the most massively obvious spook I have ever encountered online.

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.

Plus, lol at this:

rocket pushs exhaust away (force one) which causes the exhaust to push on rocket (force two).

'Because nonsense!'
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 01, 2016, 09:04:06 AM
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.
Yes, and you've been wrong every single time.

And yes, markjo, you are the most massively obvious spook I have ever encountered online.

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.
LOL!!  Delusional paranoia much?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 09:33:52 AM
Yes, and you've been wrong every single time.

^Textbook shilling.

Quote
LOL!!  Delusional paranoia much?

^More textbook shilling.

Yup; you're a spook markjo & it's easy to see.

Cos you do everything by the book.

Toodle-pip, Loser; Semper Shill!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 01, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
The poll results don't lie.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 11:56:19 AM
The poll results don't lie.

You do.

So they do.

Plus, the wheels are object B...

Says the retard.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 01, 2016, 12:06:27 PM
The poll results don't lie.

You do.

So they do.

Plus, the wheels are object B...

Says the retard.
Lol

Destroyed

Lol



Who claimed the wheels were object B?


Lol



Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 12:37:37 PM
You.

You're just too dumb to realise you did so.

Look:

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

Lol

Destroyed

Lol

Etc...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 01, 2016, 01:25:01 PM

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 09:42:42 PM

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 01, 2016, 10:39:46 PM
I am a real man, I hit bits of metal, with smaller bits, of metal.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 01, 2016, 11:09:57 PM
Remember saying this?

I'm done with this thread untill you do the coke bottle rocket experiment most primary school kids do.

Quite the mad liar aren't you?

Here you go; 'rokkit-syenzze' courtesy of markjo:

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 just do...

Because nonsense.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 01, 2016, 11:52:39 PM
I changed my mind.

At what altitude does the rocket fail?

Edit.
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.

Maybe you should get your research peer reviewed? I've heard one of the best ways to get a Nobel prize is proving an existing theory wrong.

But you're not in it for the fame are you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 02, 2016, 12:02:22 AM
How's your hammer performing today Papa? In accordance with newons laws I hope.

I shovel well, I shovel very well.

Papa you shovel better than any man ive ever met, but that does not make you an astronautical engineer...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 02, 2016, 01:18:59 AM
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.

9 pages of this thread, countless others and he can't wrap his head around it yet.

I actually asked (very embarrassed) my friend with a PHD last night how a rocket works in a vacuum, surprisingly its how it works anywhere according to her.

At the pub watching state of origin...
The blues lost anyway
See what you've done Papa xD.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 02, 2016, 04:09:51 AM
I changed my mind.

You don't have a 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.

Oh, so the whole 'object A & object B', Newton's 3rd Law, thing is irrelevant now?

Meh.

Papa you shovel better than any man ive ever met

So you've met me now?

Meh.

I actually asked (very embarrassed) my friend with a PHD last night how a rocket works in a vacuum

No you didn't.

At the pub watching state of origin...

Just another Satanist & his PhD lady-friend sat in the pub watching rugby & talking about rockets, eh?

Never happened, you nutter.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 02, 2016, 05:27:05 AM

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.
So you don't disagree with what I said.  Noted.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 02, 2016, 06:26:19 AM
Edit.
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.
Oh, Papa Legba knows full well where that quote came from.  It's just another example of his complete and shameless intellectual dishonesty.

Just like pretending that an object can't carry its own reaction mass.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 02, 2016, 09:39:18 AM
Haha, I've shown this entire forum to my colleagues (We're all PhD students)

No you haven't & no you aren't.

According to yourself, is what I'm saying true or false, and why?

Don't care.

Also, why the 'meh'?

Because nonsense.

Here's N3 for you to misinterpret for the 29,000,000th 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
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 02, 2016, 11:48:35 AM
the pushing of fuel away from the rocket results in the rocket being pushed forwards.

Said the retard.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 02, 2016, 12:36:07 PM
Scared, are you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 02, 2016, 02:08:06 PM
Here's N3 for you to misinterpret for the 29,000,000th 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
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.

In case you hadn't noticed, those are examples where the reaction mass is the environment (water, air and road). 

A rocket is different because it carries its own reaction mass in the form of propellant. 

Consider the motion of a rocket in a vacuum. A rocket is equipped with a rocket engine that burns propellant. As the rocket engine burns the propellant, the burnt propellant is pushed out the back. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the burnt propellant must also be pushing the rocket engine forward. The size of the force on the burnt propellant equals the size of the force on the rocket engine; the direction of the force on the burnt propellant (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the rocket engine (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for rockets to move in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 02, 2016, 10:52:27 PM
A rocket is different because it carries its own reaction action mass in the form of propellant.

Fixed your silly disinfo bullshit for you, old man...

Wanna try again?

Or is just slowly drip-feeding sock-puppet votes into your fake-ass poll enough for you?

Either way you're a pretty sad spectacle.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 02, 2016, 11:38:36 PM
I hit big bits of metal, with smaller bits, of metal.

That's awesome man.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 01:42:33 AM
Isn't it?

Now back to your 'rokkit-syenzze':

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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 03, 2016, 05:29:37 AM
A rocket is different because it carries its own reaction action mass in the form of propellant.

Fixed your silly disinfo bullshit for you, old man...

Wanna try again?
Okay, if you want the propellant to be the action mass, then that leaves the rocket engine as the reaction mass.

You get a perfectly workable action/reaction force pairing either way.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 06:36:41 AM
Damn, you're persistent, aintcha?

Here, let me fix your bullshit even further:

A rocket is different exactly the same  because it carries its own reaction action mass in the form of propellant.

You still won't get it though, will you?

Please read again & compare the fish, bird & car to your now-corrected statement:

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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 03, 2016, 07:15:27 AM
So a bird is exactly the same as a rocket?

Thats awesome man good for you, look at you using a computer all by yourself.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 03, 2016, 07:24:04 AM
Damn, you're persistent, aintcha?

Here, let me fix your bullshit even further:

A rocket is different exactly the same  because it carries its own reaction action mass in the form of propellant.

You still won't get it though, will you?
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 08:14:05 AM
So a bird is exactly the same as a rocket?

No.

But Newton's 3rd is applied to both in exactly the same manner...

Remember Newton's 3rd?

The topic of the thread, yes?

You're the one who doesn't get it.

This will never become true no matter how long your brainwashing disinfo-ass repeats it.

Birds, fish and cars move by force pairing with their environment.

Correct.

Quote
Rockets 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.

And, in the case of a vacuum, that separate & external mass is absent.

And you cannot push on Nothing.

Newton's 3rd forbids it.

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 await your insane bullshit replies with utter indifference.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 03, 2016, 08:52:32 AM
"Nothing can create a force-pairing with its own force."

Lol

Lol

Lol

Really, lol

Maybe watch the skateboard medicine ball video again.

Lol

Newtons 3rd law is about force-pairing with "it's own force".

Lol
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 12:11:31 PM
Newtons 3rd law is about force-pairing with "it's own force".

'Because nonsense'.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 03, 2016, 12:13:06 PM
Quote
Rockets 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.

You do understand the concept of one object inside another object, don't you?

Like water inside a fire hose.

Or air inside a balloon.

Or high pressure air inside a scuba tank.

Or propellant inside a rocket.

Or do you believe that the words "external mass" precludes that mass being physically located inside another object?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 01:00:27 PM
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?

Or is the rocket creating some other magical invisible force that you're not telling us about?

Just read again; slow as you need to, old-timer:

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 await your increasingly insane bullshit replies with utter indifference.


Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 03, 2016, 01:11:05 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

Remember, the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 01:49:59 PM
the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.

LMFAO!!!

You are mental.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 03, 2016, 03:12:06 PM
the rocket engine is one object and propellant is another separate object inside the rocket.

LMFAO!!!

You are mental.
You can't tell the difference between a rocket and its propellant and you have the nerve to call me names?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 03, 2016, 04:15:42 PM
You do understand the concept of one object inside another object, don't you?

I don't think he's ever been able to make it happen xD.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 03, 2016, 04:18:40 PM
So a bird is exactly the same as a rocket?

No.

But Newton's 3rd is applied to both in exactly the same manner...

So a bird and a rocket fly the same way?

Thats awesome man, good for you. You keep doing your thing man don't let them make fun of you.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: gasfornuisje on June 03, 2016, 05:37:06 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:00:43 PM
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]
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:07:09 PM
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]

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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 03, 2016, 06:08:04 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

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
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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:15:56 PM
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...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:16:52 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

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
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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:19:03 PM
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...
your debates are null. Round earth is false4
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 03, 2016, 06:19:22 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

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
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.

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.
Wat?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: gasfornuisje on June 03, 2016, 06:20:05 PM
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...

Wow, not being able to properly counter an argument is the other person being ignorant now?
In that case you are ignorant.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:22:47 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

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
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.

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.
Wat?


 a rocket's One Newton of force in your diagram is equivilent to a flat earth's 1000 newton  of force. checkmate.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: gasfornuisje on June 03, 2016, 06:23:41 PM
Also how could rocket engines ignite when flying sideways into your so called "orbits"?
During staging when the rocket turns off and another engine turns on how could things ever ignite if the propellants are pulled downwards?
Things could never properly ignite with round earth.
All this is fake as hell and all space rocketry is hoax.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:24:54 PM
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...
your debates are null. Round earth is false4

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:28:23 PM
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...
your debates are null. Round earth is false4

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.
 

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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: gasfornuisje on June 03, 2016, 06:30:51 PM
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...
your debates are null. Round earth is false4

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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 03, 2016, 06:33:09 PM
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?
No, the burning propellant reacts against the rocket engine.

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
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.

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.
Wat?
Don't even bother.  It's just another troll invasion.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:33:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:34:12 PM
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...
your debates are null. Round earth is false4

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!

you can see the photoshop on the "rocket propulsion" image posed by gas. proves you all roundies are fake trolls.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:36:16 PM
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?

no, what I am saying is if round earth was really true, this is how physics would work. doesn't make sense? neither does round earth.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:38:24 PM
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??
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:39:45 PM
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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:40:54 PM
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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: gasfornuisje on June 03, 2016, 06:41:54 PM
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??

Oh I see now so the fire of the propellant burning is going out too quickly to ascend upwards?
So if the engine would run very slowly it would actually start going upwards?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:42:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:50:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 03, 2016, 06:52:17 PM
3rd law is a HOAX

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction is a hoax?

Seems legit.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:53:35 PM
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.

Actually, He was false, proven in a study Diego Lisboa. Diego proved thrust was an invalid construct due to the law of conservation of energy. How can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"? that's right, you can't disprove this theory by world-renown Diego Lisboa
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 06:55:22 PM
How can the energy from a Inanimate Object be transferred into "Thrust"?

Combustion, for one.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 06:56:31 PM
How 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? checkmate
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 03, 2016, 07:03:37 PM
How 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? checkmate

Combustion is false? You win the internet, sir. Well done. You can collect your prize at the nearest corner of the flat Earth.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pugs on June 03, 2016, 07:04:45 PM
How 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? checkmate

Combustion is false? You win the internet, sir. Well done. You can collect your prize at the nearest corner of the flat Earth.

seeing as how the earth plane is infinite, that is impossible to do, sir.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 03, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
So a bird and a rocket fly the same way?

In terms of how Newton's 3rd is applied to them, yes.

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.

Newton's 3rd is one of his Laws of Motion btw, in case that helps.

You know, I could get you a day's work with the stonemasons if you want?

A bit of hard graft might get the blood flowing to your brain better...

Then perhaps you wouldn't have so much trouble understanding such elementary physical concepts?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 04, 2016, 01:10:31 AM
What altitude does the rocket fail?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 04, 2016, 01:23:30 AM
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.

Really Papa? A rocket needs the mass of the atmosphere? Woow, you must be the real genius around here *giggle* *giggle* *chuckle* *chuckle*

Anyway, I haven't been here for a while. Why Papa doesn't post the Netwon's Third Law of Motion anymore? Did he reach 100 posts already?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 04, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
What 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.

Quote
Why 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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 04, 2016, 02:25:25 AM
Aah, there it is. How many times have you posted this so far Papa? I lost track. Remember, 100 is the magic number ;)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 04, 2016, 05:38:26 AM
Aah, there it is. How many times have you posted this so far Papa? I lost track. Remember, 100 is the magic number

Why, will it stop being true if I keep posting it you weirdo?

It is the topic of the thread after all.

Besides, whenever you disinfo-scum want me to stop doing something it's always best to keep it up...

Therefore:

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.


Toodle-pip, Losers!

 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 04, 2016, 08:28:16 AM
Why does physics stop working in a vacuum?
Can the medicine ball skateboard experiment work in a vacuum?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 04, 2016, 05:00:54 PM
The exhaust is object b
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 04, 2016, 05:18:15 PM
What altitude does the rocket fail?

Well below the Karman Line at 100km.

Not even momentum will get it beyond that...

So you're saying somewhere below 100km altitude, Newton's 3rd Law breaks down completely then? Or is the diagram below wrong somehow?

(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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 04, 2016, 06:22:48 PM
What 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.

Quote
Why 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.

Please give some justification for your outlandish guess of
"Well below the Karman Line at 100km.  Not even momentum will get it beyond that..."
since the Kármán line is a quite arbitrary altitude!
You missed (at least) one, here I'll add it on for you!
         
Rocket ~ exhaust mass - making it possible for rockets to work in a vacuum!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 04, 2016, 07:02:53 PM
Why does physics stop working in a vacuum?

It doesn't.

Gas-powered rockets do though.

Because of physics.

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.

Wtf is wrong with you all?

Oh, look, another madman:

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'.

Of course, this quote has been flushed down the memory-hole & is now almost impossible to find outside old print books...

But he said it alright.

And it's as true now as it was then.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 04, 2016, 07:08:27 PM
Karman himself said 'No amount of aerodynamics will get a rocket above 100km altitude'.

Note the use of the word 'aerodynamics'.
What does aerodynamics have to do with getting a rocket above 100km? ???
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 04, 2016, 07:37:15 PM
Why does physics stop working in a vacuum?

It doesn't.

Gas-powered rockets do though.
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.



Quote
The exhaust is object b

Incorrect & proven so repeatedly.


Yet firing blanks produces recoil.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 04, 2016, 07:43:58 PM
So you're saying somewhere below 100km altitude, Newton's 3rd Law breaks down completely then?

No I am not.

Ok, so which part of the diagram was wrong then?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 04, 2016, 08:15:12 PM
What does aerodynamics have to do with getting a rocket above 100km?

Already explained repeatedly.

You time-wasting bullshitter.

rickets work in space.

Yes, if you could get to space then vitamin D/calcium deficiency would probably still work.

You bullshitting time-waster.

Ok, so which part of the diagram was wrong then?

Didn't even look at it.

Because bullshit & time-wasting.

Time for this 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.


Toodle-pip, Bullshitting Time-wasters!

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 04, 2016, 08:36:26 PM
Ok, so which part of the diagram was wrong then?

Didn't even look at it.

Because bullshit & time-wasting.

Interesting. That's similar to what my toddler does when she feels like not listening. Ignore and protest loudly.

So combustion happens in a chamber. Exhaust can only escape in one specific direction. When that exhaust escapes, it has a measurable force at the vent. What happens to the object that the exhaust escapes from?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 04, 2016, 08:50:45 PM
What does aerodynamics have to do with getting a rocket above 100km?

Already explained repeatedly.
Being wrong repeatedly doesn't really count.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 04, 2016, 09:48:31 PM
Already explained repeatedly.
You surely haven't, but please quote the post if you have.

Aah, Papa, he must have realized at some point that his troll had gone south so bad, yet he had to keep going with it. But don't worry, just post that Newton's 3rd law again.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 04, 2016, 10:04:43 PM
...
rickets work in space.

Yes, if you could get to space then vitamin D/calcium deficiency would probably still work.

You bullshitting time-waster.

...

As expected, you pissed your pants and ran away.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 05, 2016, 01:56:40 AM
Being wrong repeatedly doesn't really count.

Brainwashing.

You surely haven't, but please quote the post if you have.

Oxymoron.

As expected, you pissed your pants and ran away.

Bullshit.


Now this again, as you are trying to discourage me from posting 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 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.


Toodle-pip, Bullshitting Time-wasters!

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 05, 2016, 03:53:10 AM
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'.
Yes, I noted the word 'aerodynamics'. It's very significant, but Papa just can't understand why!
Clearly Kármán was much brighter than Papa Legba. He knew that aerodynamics required dense enough air, but space rockets do not rely on aerodynamics to operate. That's why all this rubbish about "aerodynamic stability" of these rockets is hogwash. Papa's favourite space rockets usually rely on active stability via gimballed rocket motors controlled by an automatic control system.
I know Papa won't understand this, it is a bit complicated, it's rocket science after all and obviously a bit outside Papa's limited expertise - bit above his pay grade!
Of course rocket powered missiles which operate almost entirely within the atmosphere do largely rely aerodynamics for stability.

There is probably little chance of any aircraft relying on "aerodynamic" getting anywhere near the Kármán line - by this altitude there is virtually no air! Hence the need for rocket power.

The record for a "non-rocket powered winged aircraft" seems to be 29,524 m by the unmanned propeller driven NASA Helios HP0. This aircraft set altitude records for propeller driven aircraft, solar-electric aircraft, and highest altitude in horizontal flight by a winged aircraft. From: Wikipedia.

And Papa, whatever stories you make up, the "definition" of the "edge of space" is quite arbitrary, but the "Kármán line" has been chosen for "uniformity".
There that should keep you happy, Papa, plenty of facts for you to ignorantly deny again.
Carry on proving your complete ignorance on these matters.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 05, 2016, 06:19:10 AM
*massive disinfo-rant snipped*

STFU Geoff.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 05, 2016, 07:32:14 AM
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'.

It's like saying, "No amount of horses will get me above 100 mph". That doesn't mean I can't go above 100 mph, I'll just stop relying on horses and drive a fast car instead.

Same goes with the rocket here, "No amount of aerodynamics will get a rocket above 100km altitude" doesn't mean a rocket can't go above 100km. It can just top relying on aerodynamics and use the thrust from the rocket engine to go up. That is, if rockets rely on aerodynamics in the first place, which they don't, because they rely on their rocket engines from the get-go.

Now don't say "why are you trying to explain rockets with horses you idiot?" Well, that's how you use an analogy, you explain something using something else with the same working principle. Because if I use physics instead, your brain will blow up. Now you don't want your brain to blow up, do you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 05, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
*another mad tl;dr disinfo-rant snipped*

Here; have some science:

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.


Toodle-pip, mad ranting Time-wasters!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 05, 2016, 07:56:10 AM
I don't know if that counts as spamming, but that is great. Keep going Papa, we know you can do it!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 05, 2016, 01:11:45 PM
I don't know if that counts as spamming

Why?

Would do widdwe sock-baby wike to weport me?

Would da widdwe sock-baby wike da bad man to go awaa-a-aaay?

Why don't da widdwe sock-baby weport da bad man to da same mods da widdwe sock-baby twolls 24/7?

How does da widdwe sock-baby tink dat'll work out for it?


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.


Toodle-pip, widdwe sock-baby whingers!

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 05, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
Alright Papa. So how about Newton's second law? Let's back up to that one for a minute. Do you agree with F=ma? In a near vacuum, like space? Or is that also wrong?

Because the third follows naturally from the second. Combustion in the combustion chamber causes the exhaust to expand rapidly (it accelerates from its prior state) and exit out the rocket. That is a force, unbalanced and moving in one certain direction - 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.

So how many of Newton's laws of motion are invalid, according to you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 05, 2016, 06:40:19 PM
Post the law again Papa, i think i nearly get it, just need another 40 or so times.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 05, 2016, 08:43:24 PM
Post the law again Papa, i think i nearly get it, just need another 40 or so times.

Way to go Papa, that is progress!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 05, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
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:

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.


Toodle-pip, time-wasting Losers!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 05, 2016, 11:36:23 PM
Could the fish swim without water?
Nope

Could the bird fly without air?
Nope

Could the car move without a road?
Nope

Could the rocket move without the exhaust gas?
Also no

Forces result from interactions, remember?
Off course I do, like the interaction between a rocket and it's exhaust gas rapidly ejected downwards, right?


Expected response from Papa:
BS BS BS
moron moron moron, shill shill shill
rant rant rant, shout shout shout
some theory that doesn't even remotely back up his argument


And the finishing touch:
Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs ...


Papa 11 pages ago: Yep, this is good sh*t, this is how to do it!
Papa now: I'm so f*cked up
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 05, 2016, 11:47:44 PM
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 >>>>>


You keep missing bits out!
This Alzheimers must be getting to you by now. Poor fellow, you must be nearly 63 now, all this smoking and drinking brings it on earlier. Luckily I don't have that problem.

Could the gun have recoil without the bullet's mass?

Could the rocket have thrust without the exhaust gas's mass?

You really should learn 30 x (100% wrong) = 3,000% 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
.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 01:00:52 AM
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?'.

You really are a dumb bunch, aren't you?

And I didn't even look at the other tl;dr disinfo-posts, so the only time you are wasting is your own.

Anyhoo, once 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.


Toodle-pip, time-wasting Losers!



Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 06, 2016, 01:19:13 AM
Papa it doesn't help to repeat you errors!
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
.

Seen the vote lately? No: 43       Yes: 6  Papa Legba's team of trolls.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 01:35:53 AM
*Mad tl;dr disinfo-rant snipped yet again*

STFU, Geoff.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 02:13:44 AM
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? So birds eject their wings at high speed? Never seen one, never seen fish or car ejects their fins or wheels at high speed either.

Seen the vote lately? No: 43       Yes: 6  Papa Legba's team of trolls.

It's Papa Legba and his alts.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 02:19:17 AM
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
.

Wow wow wow, slow down there Rabinoz. You might risk Papa's brain to blow up! Now you don't want this stupid guy to stop what he's doing, do you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 06, 2016, 02:28:28 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 06, 2016, 02:31:27 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 02:34:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 02:36:52 AM
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.

Yo come on dude I wasn't done writing ...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 06, 2016, 05:45:19 AM
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?
Papa'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.

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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 06:06:03 AM
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.

This explains 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 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.



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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2016, 06:07:41 AM
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?'.
Birds, fish and cars don't shoot 80-90% of their mass out their tail ends to get where they're going either.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 06, 2016, 06:12:41 AM
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.


Please quote an independent source that agrees with you!

That whirring noise is poor old Isaac spinning in his grave at your stupidity.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2016, 06:17:44 AM
So now exhaust gas to a rocket is like wings to a bird, huh?

Yes, because they are both Accelerating a Mass.
And just what mass is a rocket accelerating?


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.
As is your total disregard for gas to expand to fill available (combustion chamber) volume.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 06, 2016, 06:28:02 AM
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.
Think yourself lucky you're getting some response. It won't last long, so make the best of it before your name change.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 06, 2016, 06:29:00 AM
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.
Save your nonsense.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 06:32:57 AM
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?

]Please quote an independent source that agrees with you!

Okay:

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.


Now STFU Geoff.

And just what mass is a rocket accelerating?

Back so soon, markjo?

And with such a dumb question?

Meh...

Up to some thread manipulation game or other as usual, no doubt.

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!

OKAY?


*Yawn!*

Been here before, markjo; you lost every single time...

Remember?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 06, 2016, 06:33:16 AM
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?
Papa'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.

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!
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 06, 2016, 06:38:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 06, 2016, 06:45:33 AM
A vacuum cannot exist and neither can free expansion in its entirety. You can get close to it but the inevitable happens, as in, for every action there is and equal and opposite reaction, which means that molecules can only expand against each other, meaning not quite free expansion, because free expansion would mean expansion of a molecule against nothing and there is no such thing as nothing.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2016, 06:49:56 AM
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?
My point is that rockets carry their own reaction mass.  You know, the 80-90% of mass that gets shot out the tail end?

And just what mass is a rocket accelerating?

Back so soon, markjo?

And with such a dumb question?
If it's such a dumb question, then you shouldn't have any trouble answering it.

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 combustion chamber itself provides resistance to the gas flow.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 06:51:52 AM
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.

Yes; let's get rid of all the Gas Laws & use Solid Mechanics instead...

Then ypoou cann hazz shpayze-shyppzz!!!1111!!!!11!

What a sad bastard you are.

Just disgusting.

Same goes for you markjo.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 07:05:49 AM
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...

OK then, how about recoil of a crossbow then? Can you explain why there's recoil if you fire a crossbow?


(go to 5:10 where you can see the recoil, and he totally said "recoil" at 5:17)

Here's the explanation for people with right minds:
Action: The crossbow with its launching mechanism pushes the arrow forward.
Reaction: At the same time, due to Newton's 3rd law, the arrow also pushes the crossbows backwards, hence the recoil.

See, no external mass is required to produce recoil. And there is now way that the surrounding air causes the recoil.

Now, I want to hear your explanation. And, again, don't say "oh, a crossbow is not a rocket you dumb ass". Well, your mind has failed you in understanding a rocket, so I use something that works in the same principle regarding Newton's 3rd law. Go on, tell me which is the bird, which is the wing, and which is the air.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 08:31:20 AM
How about recoil of a hand gun then? Oh, you're gonna say it's the external atmosphere too. Right...

Wrong.

no external mass is required to produce recoil.

Notice how the man cocks the crossbow THEN loads the arrow.

This means that the arrow is a Separate, or EXTERNAL Mass to the crossbow...

You can work out the rest by now, surely?

If not, this may help:

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.


Now STFU.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 06, 2016, 08:40:05 AM
Notice how the rocket is built and then the liquid oxygen and fuel are pumped in?

Now STFU
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 09:05:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 09:12:12 AM
Notice how fuelling the rocket is equivalent to cocking the crossbow?

I don't, cause I'm not that dumb, obviously. Fuelling the rocket adds mass and energy to it, cocking the crossbow just adds the energy. What's equivalent then? Cocking the crossbow then loading the arrow, you add both mass and energy to it. The fuel then reacts with oxygen releasing energy, like the cocked crossbow releasing it's potential energy. The product of the reaction is then blasted downwards, like the arrow launched forward. The rocket then pushed upwards, like the crossbow pushed backwards. Where's the atmosphere then? Well, we don't need it to push the rocket.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 06, 2016, 09:32:57 AM
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.

Nope. The combustion chamber/combustion is equal to the string.

BTW there is nothing in your spamming that supports your claims.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 10:21:17 AM
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?

Cool story bro...

Cocking the crossbow then loading the arrow

LOL!!!

I see what you did there!

The combustion chamber/combustion is equal to the string.

Wtf?

You lot really do need to get your mad disinfo-bullshit straight.

But good job reducing what is in fact a matter of Fluid Mechanics/Thermodynamics to the entirely inappropriate realm of Solid Mechanics...

As you always do.

Now 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.


Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 06, 2016, 10:28:20 AM
You must wear diapers.

Lol

Back to "Exhuast stacking."
Lol

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 11:37:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2016, 11:56:18 AM
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?
The mass of the string is already a part of the crossbow's overall mass.

Cocking the crossbow then loading the arrow

LOL!!!

I see what you did there!
Yes, you realized that adding tension to the crossbow string is an independent function to loading the arrow. 

Or did you?

Perhaps you're thinking about a bow and arrow where loading the arrow and adding tension to the string are generally considered one action.

If you want, you can think of the arrow as the rocket and the crossbow as the propellant.  The crossbow string contains the energy (like the propellant) and the action of pushing the mass of the arrow results in a reaction of the arrow pushing the crossbow. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 06, 2016, 11:56:23 AM
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?

Sure it does. But unlike the rocket fuel, the string is not ejected. It pretty much stays there, with the crossbow. Get it Papa? Sure you don't :D :D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 06, 2016, 11:40:21 PM
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.

If you are still confused, please read 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.





Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 07, 2016, 12:06:27 AM
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?

So tell me Papa, the one you keep on posting, is it Newton's 3rd Law for solid mechanics or fluids?

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.

And the burnt fuel stays in the combustion chamber there? Like the string stays with the crossbow? You're, again, not gonna answer this properly though, are you?

Anyway, since you don't want all to be solid, how about this then


How can those "hoverboads" propel their riders upwards, and why does it have to eject water downwards at high speed? Notice how it ejects water, yet doesn't have to be in the water to work? Pretty much like a rocket ejecting air but don't have to be surrounded by air to work. So Papa, which is the bird, which is the wing, and which is the atmosphere? A friendly advice, you better stop now and leave with what's left of your dignity, rather than keep going and having it less and less with you. But personally, I'd love to see you keep on going.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 12:31:42 AM
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...

Again, no external mass = no pressure; all in accordance with N3.

As for your hoverboards, water is an incompressible fluid; this may give you a clue as to how they work?

Unless you are claiming they violate N3?

In which case God help you...

Anyhoo; please continue your mad ranting, which is written in the exact same style as BabyHighSpeed, Frenat & Luckyfred btw.

Or don't.

Makes no odds to me...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 07, 2016, 12:47:47 AM
]Please quote an independent source that agrees with you!

Okay:

Papa Legba'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, no, no. I asked for an independent source, not the (n+1)th[1] repetition of Papa Legba's Third Law

[1] Where n - > ∞;
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 07, 2016, 01:24:12 AM
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...

Well, that's right and wrong at the same time. Looks like you're showing some progress, well done.

How about an inflated balloon when you release the bottom hole? If you open the bottom hole and release it the balloon will go like a rocket (with uncontrolled direction though). It's got normal pressure outside and higher pressure inside. But the area of the hole is so small, therefore according to your understanding, the force is small (Force=slightly higher pressure inside X small hole area). It should have just blown its air out slowly, yet in reality it goes like a crazy rocket.

The reason? 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. Same as the rocket, high pressure in the combustion chamber, lower pressure outside, hole in the nozzle, the air goes from high pressure to low pressure, therefore ejected from the combustion chamber downwards through the nozzle, while the rocket is pushed upwards, Newton's 3rd law. And when I said lower pressure outside, vacuum has zero pressure, so it's also lower than inside the combustion chamber, which still allows it to work.

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 07, 2016, 01:54:07 AM

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.

So good xD

Also this
Quote
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


I'm buying one for my Nephew, I'll buy you one too if you promise to use it Papa, it says ages 8+ so ask a responsible adult to help you with the launch.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 05:22:48 AM
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.

Here is N3; note it emphasises the necessity of force-pairings, a thing your mad disinfo-rant did not include:

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 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.

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.

Blah, sneer, whine, yak, blah...

Your continued attempts to confuse recoil with hot gas jet propulsion are noted.

Oh, & STFU Geoff.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2016, 05:34:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 05:47:12 AM
Well according to your crazy model all the pressure is applied to the injector plates above the combustion chamber...

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?

And I'm just gonna pretend you didn't ask if a gas can force-pair with a solid...

That was a new low for you, saggy old clapped-out cloth-spook markjo.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 07, 2016, 05:57:04 AM
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 "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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 07, 2016, 07:02:02 AM
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.

With your interpretation of Newton's 3rd law, I guess I am wrong then. Same as 2+2*3=8 is wrong in a kindergarten kid's interpretation of math. (And you're thinking about cherry-picking the "I guess I am wrong then" part, huh? Well, I dare you to do it!)

Why does your silly hoverboard fall back into the sea when it gets above around 16 feet in height

Because 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. There are videos where the riders are not trying to be cool (in fact, first video is kinda lame), and they stay up there with their feet above the water surface:



& why does it work better the closer the jets are to the sea surface?

Because one, the more mass of the pipe is lifted above the surface, adding more  to the total weight. And two, the nozzle is higher. It requires higher potential energy for the water to reach the nozzle, therefore the water is ejected at lower speed.

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.

So it is pushing the sea while even the rider's feet is above the surface, like in the two videos I just provided you? How?

And you haven't completely answered my previous question either. 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? As you can see, they can stay up in the air if they want to. Like in the two videos I provided, the riders' feet are well above the water surface. Give us a complete answer, completely explaining the workings of it. If you think you have, quote your complete answer. If you do neither of those super easy tasks, that means you don't understand Newton's 3rd law.

And by the way
As for your hoverboards, water is an incompressible fluid; this may give you a clue as to how they work?

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 08:28:49 AM
Why does your silly hoverboard fall back into the sea when it gets above around 16 feet in height
Because 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

'Uncool & boring'...

Lol no.

May want to look at the specs for these things, Mr. The Fail-Troll.

Cos I have...

'Max. height 16 feet' it said.

Know why that is?

Same reason a rocket fails when it doesn't have enough atmosphere to push off.

Know why that is?

Because 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.


Oh, & STFU sokarul.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 07, 2016, 09:39:22 AM
Quote from: hello_there
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.

"stfu sokarul"

Lol

Destroyed.

lol

Exhaust Stacking

Lol
Can't even back up his claims

Lol

65 years old?

Lol
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2016, 11:07:51 AM
Well according to your crazy model all the pressure is applied to the injector plates above the combustion chamber...

Which'd be pretty catastrophic to say the least.
Why would that be catastrophic?  Turbine engine combustion chambers seem to work just fine with a similar configuration. 

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 07, 2016, 11:25:13 AM
Quote from: hello_there
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.

"stfu sokarul"

Lol

Destroyed.

lol

Exhaust Stacking

Lol
Can't even back up his claims

Lol

65 years old?

Lol
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 11:31:37 AM
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?

Just gets worse for you every post...

Then, I suppose you have no choice but to keep digging your grave whilst piling on the sock-votes in your fake poll in the hope that'll save you somehow?

Oh, & STFU sokarul.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2016, 12:25:31 PM
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?
Are 'similar' and 'same' synonyms where you come from?

No, of course rocket engines and turbine engines don't have the same configuration.

But they do share some of the same characteristics.

For example, they both inject fuel into a high pressure, open ended combustion chamber to be burned.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 12:51:44 PM
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...

That's where the force-pairing occurs.

Keep lying though, King Nothing...

Lotta mugs out there!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 07, 2016, 01:05:15 PM
Pressure stops reaction? You could win the Nobel Prize for that kind of talk. For you see in the real world, pressure lets reactions happen faster.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 01:10:17 PM
You are so markjo's bitch aren't you?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 07, 2016, 01:16:03 PM
You are so markjo's bitch aren't you?

I just like to point out your stupidity.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
You are so markjo's bitch aren't you?
I just like to point out your stupidity.

You'd prefer to be a Dalek though, wouldn't you?

Markjo's special little Dalek...

It's okay to admit it you know?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 07, 2016, 01:43:44 PM
Enough derailing.

Here's why rockets cannot work in a vacuum:

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.



Daleks be damned; you just can not push on NOTHING.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 07, 2016, 02:39:54 PM
Sit down and take notes.

(http://)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2016, 04:44:48 PM
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.
Then why isn't a turbine engine snuffed out by back pressure?

As long as the fuel pressure is higher than the chamber pressure, there shouldn't be any problem.

Exit of the nozzle, Bagpuss...

That's where the force-pairing occurs.
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).
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 07, 2016, 07:37:28 PM
We'll Papa has at least 4 alts, no doubt there we got a yes vote from jroa hoppy and scepti that leaves Papa and 4 alts.

Also Markjo got post 420... damn you Markjo.

Papa gas molecules have mass, free expansion is not relevant here, mass ejected one way causes an "equal and opposite reaction"

Imagine you were in space with a bag of apples, you throw the apple and move proportionate to the mass of the apple the speed you throw it and your mass.

Think of the fuel as apples the rocket as you and the chemical reaction as throwing the apples.

Goddamnit man it's not hard to grasp.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2016, 08:04:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 12:09:45 AM
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).

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.
Then why isn't a turbine engine snuffed out by back pressure?

Because your model is bullshit you circular-reasoning old fraud.

Think of the fuel as apples the rocket as you and the chemical reaction as throwing the apples.

Yes, if you think of a continuous stream of exhausted gas as a bunch of individual solid items having a force inexplicably applied to them then ypoou cann hazz shpayze-shippz...

But if you think of a continuous stream of exhausted gas as what it actually is, i.e. a continuous stream of exhausted gas, then you cannot.

Because of the Laws of Physics.

This is your problem; you simply refuse to treat things as what they are & can only keep dreaming up increasingly bizarre false analogies.

We've been here before btw...

And you lost every time.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 12:49:56 AM
The gas molecules have mass you mongoloid.

You can think of the gas molecules as very small very light apples.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 12:56:18 AM
Helium for example has an atomic mass of 4.002602 u ± 0.000002 u.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

You're making yourelf look so stupid...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 01:02:36 AM
You can think of the gas molecules as very small very light apples.

No you can't.

Which is why you have to come out with garbage like the following:

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.

Yeah; if you throw out all the Gas Laws then ypou cann hazz shpayze-shippz...

You mongoloid.

Plus look at yourself desperately retro-editing & double-posting & deleting to get out of the mess you created...

Of course, you cannot read my posts as I am writing them, can you?

LOL!!!

Yes you can; because this forum is compromised...

It could not be more obvious.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 01:41:13 AM
What mess I created? Do you mean the thread where your arguments were consistently and completly destroyed?

I edited it for a typo, seriously man.

Also, the gas atoms have mass, therefore the throwing apple comparison was completely relevant, nice job dodging that one.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 01:52:28 AM
What mess I created? Do you mean the thread where your arguments were consistently and completly destroyed?

This only happened in your head.

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...

Meh.

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'...

How's that working out for you, Mini-Minion?

Perhaps you can let your true feelings be known in 'Angry Ranting'?

Toodle-pip, Prince of Pseudo-Scientific Darkness!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 08, 2016, 03:28:23 AM
U
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?
So now solid atoms have mass, but gas atoms are massless! This really is a new physics. Can we christen it Poppy Physics?

I am thinking of wonderful applications for this - these new Poppy Leghorn Rokkits store all their propellant in gaseous form (no mass, wow!) then solidify it and spew it out the back. Gee Poppy,  you should patent the idea!

Makes me wonder how these ion thrusters work? That seem pretty good at get getting from asteroid to asteroid.

And you're getting so literary with your alliterative "Mini-Minion", wouldn't "Marshmallow-Mini-Minion" be a wonderful description for that stuffing you use to fill where your brains leaked from.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 03:33:38 AM
I'm playing ball.

Quote from: wikipedia
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.

Quote
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.

Humour me I'm genuinely curious as to your opinion.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 04:01:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 08, 2016, 05:14:46 AM
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?
There is one little problem! Space is not really a vacuum, there actually some particles there.
Quote from: Wikipedia
The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 106 particles per m3
That sure boils away your silly Boyle's Law argument.

Quote from: Papa Legba

In an infinite vacuum such as space is claimed to be, Pressure can only ever be Zero; ergo Work & Force will also be Zero.
You mean "an infinite vacuum such as" Papa Legba claims "space is".
But the exhaust gas pressure in the exhaust nozzle is not zero, therefore big pressure gradient, therefore big thrust. QED, Ad  Nauseum.

Now, almost everyone except renowned Spase Injineer Poppy Leghorn, knows rocket would work in a vacuum, but since space is not really a vacuum, even Spase Injineer Poppy Leghorn must admit that they might work in real space!

  ::) Papa Legba thinks that only one person lives in Australia and every one of them is called Geoff.  ::)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 05:41:22 AM
So now space is not a vacuum?

Meh...

Oh look, from wikipedia: "Outer space has very low density & pressure & is the closest physical approximation to a perfect vacuum".

Seems you missed that bit; funny as it is the very first line of the section on 'outer space' in the entry on 'vacuum'.

Please stop lying, Geoff; you are doing yourself no favours here.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 08, 2016, 06:07:38 AM
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).

He turned the other tap on because that's how those sprayers work you know, they need water.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 08, 2016, 06:11:16 AM
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.
The force from a rocket is created when the exhaust leaves the rocket.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2016, 07:16:42 AM
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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

If it did, then vacuum cleaner manufacturers have been lying to us for a very long time.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 09:11:58 AM
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.

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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 08, 2016, 09:25:39 AM
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.

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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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!
Water being incompressible has nothing to do with what is seen. The video simply shows the water isn't pushing off the air.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2016, 09:26:23 AM
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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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?
Why not?  You've shit up lots of threads with less.

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 12:25:33 PM
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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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?
Why not?  You've shit up lots of threads with less.

So you admit you're shitting up the thread with mad quibbling?

LOL!!!

There are degrees of vacuum.

And outer space is the highest degree of vacuum known to science.

Does this mean that you're ready admit that an object can carry its own reaction mass?

We back to the crossbow now?

Wtf is wrong with you?

Oh, & STFU sokarul.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2016, 06:43:42 PM
There are degrees of vacuum.

And outer space is the highest degree of vacuum known to science.
Yes, but it's still not a perfect vacuum.

Does this mean that you're ready admit that an object can carry its own reaction mass?

We back to the crossbow now?
I was thinking more like Satan on a skateboard throwing medicine balls at your head.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: ibelle42 on June 08, 2016, 07:01:15 PM

And outer space is the highest degree of vacuum known to science.

Outer space is close to an ideal vacuum, yet it is not actually one.  There's actually quite a bit of interstellar dust, etc floating around out there.  Its density is just very, very, VERY low.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 08, 2016, 08:06:08 PM

Oh, & STFU sokarul.
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on June 08, 2016, 08:07:00 PM
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.

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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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!
Water being incompressible has nothing to do with what is seen. The video simply shows the water isn't pushing off the air.

Water is compressible.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 08, 2016, 08:48:29 PM
Well Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a vacuum...

Oh, & STFU Geoff.

Maybe "Boyle's Law states pretty clearly that a gas cannot even exist in a" perfect "vacuum",
BUT all that means is that once we add some gas it is no longer a perfect vacuum! Big deal, we knew that already.

So maybe there can be no gas in a perfect vacuum, but since space does have some gas and is infinite (so you keep saying), so "space" can hold an infinite quantity of gas - because
(any finite quantity, no matter how small) x (infinity) = (infinity).
If you doubt this, just go brush up on you theory of "infinity"!

So stop this idiocy of not being ably to put gases into a vacuum.
For a start the sun ejects something like a million tons per second into your magic infinite vacuum of space. Where do you think that ends up?

Now that we have dealt with the trivia, how about the important stuff

Your still stuck on Geoff aren't you? Poor fellow, but you'll just have you face it - he isn't around any more.
I do think that you need urgent psychiatric help. I've heard that members Marciano and the Humble_Scientist[1] offer this for free (whether you ask for it or not) - I could refer you if you like, I am as well qualified as they are!

And, I have often wondered you meant by "STFU"  stood for.
Of course as all good researchers do, I "Googled it" and there were a lot of possibilities, but the most likely seemed fo be:
"Superior Tactical Fragging Unit" - a military term for a highly effective demolition team. And yep, these Globe supporters are doing a pretty good job on Poppy, so that's really a compliment coming from you!
Thanks
.
There was another possibility, but that as it was a trifle rude, and I knew that you would never stoop to that.


[1] Mind you, Humble_Scientist, is certainly neither humble nor a scientist, but don't let that deter you.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 10:53:59 PM
stop this idiocy of not being ably to put gases into a vacuum.

I never said that & you know it.

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.

I also provided the relevant gas laws to prove what I said is true.

Please stop Lying, Geoff.

Anyhoo; this debate is now over.

And I have won.

Again.

Toodle-pip, Losers!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 11:27:39 PM
First off, I posted Boyle's and Charles gas laws not you, you've just bastardised them to suit your particular beliefs.

Answer me this, is gas made up of molecules? Do they have mass? What happens when mass is ejected one way from a rocket?

I look forward to your shitpost, also my poll suggests you haven't won the debate.

Rab I really like that superior tactical fragging unit I'm gonna use it haha.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 08, 2016, 11:33:08 PM
What happens when mass is ejected one way from a rocket?

Already answered, repeatedly.

Stop pretending it hasn't been.

You have lost the debate & are now just going to repeat yourselves like psychos.

Please read this for further elucidation, as thermodynamics is clearly beyond your comprehension:

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.

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 11:39:05 PM
So you agree mass (gas molecules) ejected one way from a rocket causes an "equal and opposie reaction?"

Awesome, looks like I won the debate then.

Common gas molecule weights.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html

I'm kind of sad it's over, honestly I had fun, thanks Papa Smurf.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 08, 2016, 11:47:54 PM
Also thermodynamics.

Quote
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.



Source: Boundless. “The Three Laws of Thermodynamics.” Boundless Chemistry. Boundless, 02 Jun. 2016. Retrieved 09 Jun. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

Please show where you believe these are violated in rocketry.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 12:16:27 AM
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
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.





Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 09, 2016, 01:20:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 01:25:35 AM
How, specifically do you believe the rocket violates the laws of thermodynamics?

Your equations are inapplicable in this context.

Edit.
Also this
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?

Thanks Wolf
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 01:48:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 02:07:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 03:57:05 AM
If you can't answer it's ok.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 09, 2016, 03:57:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 09, 2016, 04:35:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 04:37:21 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 05:10:35 AM
You are throwing the biggest temper tantrum it's hilarious.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 05:47:20 AM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 09, 2016, 06:34:33 AM
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?

Enjoy having your time wasted.

By yourself.

You are pitiful.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 09, 2016, 06:44:09 AM
The last word? Yeah, because I paid SO much attention to you and your ramblings for the last month!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2016, 06:57:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 09, 2016, 10:12:51 AM
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.

"All"? You deleted like 2 and then you got bored. And then you admitted doing so, which ruins the troll. Lol. You're not even good at trolling, try something else. Maybe your next life will be more successful.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 01:34:28 PM
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!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 09, 2016, 02:21:32 PM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 03:00:27 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 04:09:40 PM
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 Darlington
MACH 7

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.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)

[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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
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!

That's cute, Pepe is trying to patronize the new guy... Should I be honored? Seriously, though? "attacking" you? I didn't figure you'd be so sensitive...

Was it too complicated for you? Is that why you consider it irrelevant?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 04:18:41 PM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 06:20:48 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 06:39:39 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 09, 2016, 06:46:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 06:48:39 PM
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?

Why are you getting so defensive when I simply ask you for a citation?  Sounds very suspicious to me. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 09, 2016, 07:07:50 PM
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 Darlington
MACH 7

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.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)

[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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 07:22:30 PM
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 Darlington
MACH 7

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.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)

[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.

jroa stop spamming up my thread, you're as bad as Papa Smurf.

Back to the lower fora to peddle your wares please.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 07:26:55 PM
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

Sorry for the length of this, bit it is aimed at our favourite AI code named PL (Papa Lima I guess it stands for). Just to remind him of how real rockets work!
So, technically I am guilty of a "low content post"!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 07:49:22 PM
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 Darlington
MACH 7

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.
From BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER: FROM MACH 1 TO MACH 10 (http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Mach.html)

[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.  ::)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 07:54:23 PM
Disinformation. When you have nothing else.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 08:00:59 PM
sokarul sounds as wise as my 6 year old nephew.  Well, maybe no quite that wise. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2016, 08:03:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 08:05:19 PM
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."  ::)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 09, 2016, 08:12:15 PM
I sound like an astronaut?  8)

I'm sorry if your google is broken, jroa. I swear I didn't do it. But that's why I quoted that one post that had all sorts of important stuff in it, though. There was even a link! And I prefaced everything with the fact that it was coming from a source that likely thinks the Earth is round, which you may or may not agree with. But if you don't like where the information is coming from, then it's probably best for you to independently find your way around to source the info yourself instead of asking me to source it for you. I mean, it wasn't even my argument that you wanted me to give citations for, but here I am trying to help you out. Sheesh. A thank you would have been nice.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 08:13:01 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 08:14:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 08:18:15 PM
No, see, I said stop spamming up my thread Jroa.

Not, please continue derailing my thread.
🤔🤔
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 08:19:38 PM
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.

You mean you want for me to cite your entire post history? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 08:20:47 PM
No, see, I said stop spamming up my thread Jroa.

Not, please continue derailing my thread.
🤔🤔

I did not realize you owned these threads.  Daniel? 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 08:21:38 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 08:22:07 PM
Two low content, off topic posts in a row.

You can do better than this.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 09, 2016, 08:24:25 PM
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.

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?

Which claim are you asking about?  Your idiocy is common knowledge.  That was the only claim I made. 
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 09, 2016, 08:25:20 PM
Two low content, off topic posts in a row.

You can do better than this.

Three low content and off topic posts.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 09, 2016, 08:31:38 PM
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.

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?

Which claim are you asking about?  Your idiocy is common knowledge.  That was the only claim I made.
Wow, you really have no reading comprehension.

You made the claim:

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.  ::)

I said it was disinformation. You said you would back it up. I said ok. You peed your pants.

So are you going to back up your claim or not?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JoshPerplexed on June 09, 2016, 08:44:06 PM
Ok JayRow, now that you know I didn't lie, would you care to discuss the point I made?? Or, continue veering off into less and less relevant discussions?

Seriously, is this not the "Debate" forum?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 09, 2016, 08:52:04 PM
Wait, do I not sound like an astronaut now? Because I really liked that.

If only there were some sort of topic that was supposed to keep the comments on this thread cohesive....

I think it's been pretty well established that physics works. So that's definitely something humanity has going for it. Even if some people choose to ignore reality or troll strangers on the internet, luckily the rest of the world carries on as if those individuals' ignorance (willful, feigned, or otherwise) doesn't exist. And that's also great. So all-in-all, things are looking up.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 10:27:57 PM
Which claim are you asking about?  Your idiocy is common knowledge.  That was the only claim I made.

We'll, you've finally succeeded in completely derailing the thread, even Papa Legba seems to be keeping out of it!
I guess that's a win, but a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, if you ask me. Sort of devil and deep blue sea problem.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 10, 2016, 01:37:28 AM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 10, 2016, 01:53:27 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 10, 2016, 01:57:02 AM
Last Word Denied!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2016, 06:25:23 AM
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."  ::)
It was subtext.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 10, 2016, 07:40:49 AM
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!

WTF are you even talking about? Who said that outer space is not vacuum? I think you made that up. By the way, there never was a debate, because you never debated anything.

"But you need to get the last word in, as that is shill-protocol 101. So we will carry on!"


Are you implying you are a shill?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 10, 2016, 07:43:19 AM
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 ?

Toodle pip?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 10, 2016, 08:55:11 AM
Any last words?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 10, 2016, 09:30:10 AM
Any last words?
Object B is the exhaust.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2016, 12:31:37 PM
Any last words?
Congrats on getting the last post on the page.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 10, 2016, 12:36:13 PM
Here's where you lost your side of the debate, old man:

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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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?
Why not?  You've shit up lots of threads with less.

So you admit you're shitting up the thread with mad quibbling?

LOL!!!

Any more Last Words?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JoshPerplexed on June 10, 2016, 08:50:30 PM
And here's where you lost it Pepe......

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!!

Your inconsistency is your undoing....
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 10, 2016, 08:57:36 PM
Here's where you lost your side of the debate, old man:

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...
Why not?  A vacuum does not always refer to exactly zero air pressure.

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?
Why not?  You've shit up lots of threads with less.

So you admit you're shitting up the thread with mad quibbling?

LOL!!!

Any more Last Words?

Last words (http://www.papa.legba.just.got.owned.aninote.com/)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 11, 2016, 02:05:08 AM
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.

LOL!!!

Any more last words?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 11, 2016, 10:02:36 AM
Wasn't here for a few days, man has it gone somewhere else! I really don't wanna play this card, but since words don't work, I have to resort to math and physics.

Here I calculated the amount of thrust provided by the water jetpack with Newton's 3rd Law, with the principle like the one I keep telling Papa. It is later confirmed by calculation WITHOUT Newton's 3rd Law. I've also done some calculations regarding thrust a rocket produce with Newton's 3rd Law, with the same principle as what everyone is telling Papa, and again, confirmed with calculation WITHOUT Newton's 3rd Law. I also proved that a rocket indeed works for both atmospheric and vacuum conditions. If you (Papa) think I'm wrong, then show me the math! If you don't, then it's either you think I'm right or you don't understand Newton's 3rd Law.

By the way, if you don't already realize, the link in the image obviously don't work. In there I'm talking about a video which I put in my previous post, go check it out!
(http://s33.postimg.org/5wx8uhaov/001.png)
(http://s33.postimg.org/vhdb6507z/002.png)
(http://s33.postimg.org/e3bggtwm7/003.png)
(http://s33.postimg.org/tymiewj1b/004.png)
(http://s33.postimg.org/3sv9cd2lb/005.png)
(http://s33.postimg.org/eh3loy1y7/006.png)
(http://s33.postimg.org/c3ymbhisf/007.png)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Rama Set on June 11, 2016, 11:26:57 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 11, 2016, 11:48:07 AM
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?

What the gas does AFTER it leaves the nozzle is irrelevant, that's not where the work happens. In fact, you could theoretically make a rocket that only uses pressurized gas as a propellant. The gas can expand as much as it wants. Besides, that expansion obeys Newton's laws, and if what Papa Legba says actually happened, there would be no conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Rama Set on June 11, 2016, 12:01:34 PM
Gas expanding without work does occur, it just increases the temperature of the gas rather than exerting any work.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 11, 2016, 12:09:54 PM
Gas expanding without work does occur, it just increases the temperature of the gas rather than exerting any work.

I don't know what you are referring to, that's not what I said. What does this have to do with rockets?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 11, 2016, 01:39:28 PM
You poor bastards.

Just listen to yourselves...

Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.

Sad stuff.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 11, 2016, 02:56:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 03:51:09 PM
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.
:P :P Have you learnt nothing for Papa's wonderful tutorials?  :P :P
Once gas gets within coo-ee of "the infinite vacuum of space"
it immediately (within a nanosecond I think one of his alts once said) disappears into nothingness!
leaving the rocket nothing to push on!
from Legba Rokkit Fisiks 101.
In the process it does no work on the rocket, the vacuum (obviously) nor anything else! Now you've been edicated in Legba Rokkit Fisiks.
I may have missed something, but obviously Papa Lima Tango will correct it immediatly!

I don't know when Kelvin entered the picture, but by now poor
Newton, Boyle, Kelvin, Tsiolkovsky, Goddard and von Braun not to mention de Laval are spinning in their graves!
Still he's good for a bit of a laugh, but as Liberace said "Too much of a good thing is - WONDERFUL!"
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: aisantaros on June 11, 2016, 04:41:48 PM
You poor bastards.

Just listen to yourselves...

Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.

Sad stuff.

When you throw a ball at a wall do you feel that collision? No, it is not involving you it's involving a fucking wall.

You can't get thrust from "hitting" objects, walls, air. You get thrust from throwing/accelerating/launching something directly.

You genius.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 11, 2016, 04:52:44 PM
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.

Someone better call the ambulance and third degree burns unit... Nice one hello_there.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 11, 2016, 08:20:24 PM
Trying to outwit both Newton & Kelvin in order to make Something Push on Nothing.


You are not smart enough to pretend to be stupid.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 12, 2016, 12:57:10 AM
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
Even the renowned FEer, TheEngineer, tried to hammer that into your impenetrable scull.

The genuine physical laws do not conflict with each other. In many cases the same problem can be analysed using different sets of laws.

If your mathematics are correct you will get the same results using each method,
If you get different results something is wrong with (or omitted from) one or more of you solutions.
Usually, of course, choosing the best starting point can make the solution much easier.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 01:13:03 AM
*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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 01:41:01 AM
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?

I think that's it then, Papa chose the third option, and the big question have been answered. Does Papa Legba understand Newton's 3rd Law? Evidently, no he doesn't. It's been proven that 48 out of 56 people have been correct all along. Way to go guys!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on June 12, 2016, 01:49:53 AM
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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 12, 2016, 02:17:03 AM
Birds in a truck prove you people wrong.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 02:43:39 AM
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.

Because falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, loser.

Oh, & STFU Geoff.

Any more Last Words?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 02:48:32 AM
Here is N3 again; note the need to force-pair with an external mass:

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.


Also, lol at this mistake:

48 out of 56 people have been correct all along.

56 votes, yet the poll says only 53 members have voted, Einstein?

Someone been cheating?

As if a fake poll started by a fake Satanist on a fake flat earth forum carries much weight with normal people anyway...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 12, 2016, 03:12:35 AM
Here's where you blew it:
Space is not really a vacuum
Any more Last Words?
Yes, now we know you're just the "bag of hot air" that we thought all along!

You can never come up with the goods, so you go on with more ranting and raving.
The only argument you ever as is the classic "ad hominem"! Yes we do it, just learning from the master!

Sure I claimed that "Space is not really a vacuum", got a problem with that? Take a peek at:
Quote
Interstellar Gas:
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.
From What is the Interstellar Medium? (http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html)
Sure, it's very, very close to a perfect vacuum, but there is some gas there, so space is not a perfect vacuum.

Now, whatever Papa might claim it is very likely that this reference knows more than he does. Now of we could revise our opinion if only he could some reliable references, but he doesn't seem to have any.

Now, what about giving us that thrust ~ pressure relationship?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 03:16:09 AM
You can never come up with the goods, so you go on with more ranting and raving.

LMFAO!!!

Comedy Gold...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 12, 2016, 03:29:08 AM
You can never come up with the goods, so you go on with more ranting and raving.

Still unable to answer a simple question!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 03:32:37 AM
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)
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 03:43:54 AM
And by the way, I'd like to see this so called mad disinfo-site you think I copy-pasted from. That is, if you could fine one  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 12, 2016, 03:45:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 04:43:22 AM
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 that is the part that really cracked me up. Claimed I copy pasted from a site, yet don't put the link to the alleged site (for obvious reason though, can't put a link to a non-existent site). That is probably one of the most desperate attempts in the history of flat-earth trolling. Instead of just admitting defeat, Papa holds on to his lies like a tongue stuck to a frozen pole. The longer he stays, the more painful it is to get unstuck. But it has to come off eventually, and I'm looking forward to see how it goes ;D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 05:51:52 AM
And those sad looking drawings in the calculation? Took me several tries and with different writing tools.

So you're shit at drawing as well as a liar.

That math was copy-pasted off a NASA site.

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.

Like I said: mad disinfo-spam; & the fact that you have had to resort to such gibberish shows YOU have lost, not I.

Here's N3 again, just for lying retards...

Like 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!

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.


Also, still lol at this mistake, which shows how good your math skills REALLY are:

48 out of 56 people have been correct all along.

56 votes, yet the poll says only 53 members have voted, Einstein?

Someone been cheating?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 06:29:19 AM
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 Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts
...
Anybody keeping track of this shit? Has he done 100 yet?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 12, 2016, 06:37:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 12, 2016, 06:46:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 07:05:51 AM
And the math?

The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.

I already told you this, dunce-cap.

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?

And you are ignoring the rather odd fact that only 53 members have voted, yet 56 votes have been cast...

Please explain this, as it seems suspicious.

But then again, you also seem to believe that your shitty fake poll proves a damn thing; so you are hardly a scientist, as scientific truth is not a matter of consensus...

'Propagandist' would be a better description for what you & your sock-army are.

Now read this please:

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.


Then get yet another 'last word' in, as your shill-protocol compels you to do.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 07:16:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: boydster on June 12, 2016, 07:39:16 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 07:52:03 AM
And the math?

The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.

I already told you this, dunce-cap.
I was asking for your math, flat head! Here's the un-cherry-picked full quote:
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...

Please explain this, as it seems suspicious.
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.


You people have ranted on and on and yet still know Papa is correct
And he thought you were the correct one ::)
Or is he your alt? Because if he isn't, then you're such a disappointment.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 12, 2016, 08:26:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sokarul on June 12, 2016, 08:37:41 AM
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.
Why do gases that move from a compressed state to not compressed state lose energy?   
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 09:13:27 AM
Tl;dr bullshit from a disinfo-parrot who cannot understand that math based on false assumptions is worthless.

As you were, shill.

Wow, now you're just faking a quote there. I have never ever said that.
I see what you are doing Papa, but that counts as faking a quote, and I'll assume that's your intention!


Anyone who's reading this, if you click here (marked in red) on Papa Legba's post
(http://s33.postimg.org/ah8gtl7pr/Papa_Faked_AQuote.png)

this is what you're gonna find:

And the math?

The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.

I already told you this, dunce-cap.
I was asking for your math, flat head! Here's the un-cherry-picked full quote:
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...

Please explain this, as it seems suspicious.
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.


You people have ranted on and on and yet still know Papa is correct
And he thought you were the correct one ::)
Or is he your alt? Because if he isn't, then you're such a disappointment.

I'm asking you fellow good people here. Can I report Papa Legba for faking a quote? Because that will be awesome.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 12, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
And the math?

The math is based upon an erroneous interpretation of N3 & is therefore worthless.
So why don't you provide us with the math based on your correct interpretation of N3?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: JoshPerplexed on June 12, 2016, 11:34:17 AM
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.

No, he's not correct! You would know that if you studied, even a little. He's ridiculed because he has been given every opportunity to correctly understand basic physics, and chooses to remain ignorant.

You probably shouldn't get your science from a guy who's only argument is "Lies!" or "Shill!"....
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: LuggerSailor on June 12, 2016, 12:16:49 PM
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...


Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 12, 2016, 06:36:33 PM
^^ fantastic ha ha...that is true Legba style.

So 8 people voted Legba knows something. I now know Legba has 5 alt accounts, the others septic tank, humble_ scientist and Hoppy.

You remember when you say everyone is the majority knowing someone is an idiot, shill, sock puppet and whatever sad utterance you manage to squeeze out? This is the prime example of one finger pointing, three pointing back at you.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 12, 2016, 06:42:29 PM
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

Soo good man haha soo good.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: MandM on June 12, 2016, 07:18:04 PM
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...
As Papa would say...comedy gold!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2016, 09:09:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 12, 2016, 09:19:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 13, 2016, 12:19:05 AM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 13, 2016, 01:15:38 AM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: SkepticMike on June 13, 2016, 01:35:12 AM
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!

Rockets work in space
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: disputeone on June 13, 2016, 01:37:12 AM
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.
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 13, 2016, 01:51:12 AM

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.
You are learning nothing and likely never will.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: aisantaros on June 13, 2016, 02:02:38 AM
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.
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.

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.

Hmm, so when you throw a medicine ball you push against the air ? :D You throw mass you push against that mass, wtf are you dont understand ?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 13, 2016, 02:06:48 AM
LOL!!!

Back to 'Throwing a mass of gas in a vacuum'...

Again.

Anti-physics incoming!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: aisantaros on June 13, 2016, 02:13:18 AM
LOL!!!

Back to 'Throwing a mass of gas in a vacuum'...

Again.

Anti-physics incoming!

So what makes gasses massless ? :D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 02:38:24 AM
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.

Emm, dude, already mentioned, this is from Papa Legba's source:
(http://s31.postimg.org/vh3rhjzdn/Capture.png)

Are you saying Papa Legba is wrong? Or are you saying he's a liar?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 02:41:55 AM
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)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 02:44:14 AM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 02:48:08 AM
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?

I knew the 8 votes supporting you couldn't be legitimate.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 02:49:32 AM
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?

I knew the 8 votes supporting you couldn't be legitimate.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 02:58:19 AM
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 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
...

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
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 03:02:01 AM
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 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
...

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

Legba never fucks up, because he is a fuck up himself. He is a troll, he doesn't care if he's wrong or right. That's why he can't fuck up.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 13, 2016, 03:43:14 AM
Stop talking to yourself you nutter.

Quote function's still disabled btw...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 03:47:19 AM
Stop talking to yourself you nutter.

Quote function's still disabled btw...

I am not sure if you think I am the same person as "hello there" now, or you are just really confused.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: GlaringEye on June 13, 2016, 03:48:56 AM
You're all Papa Legba's sock puppets, obviously
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: rabinoz on June 13, 2016, 04:34:07 AM
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)
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 13, 2016, 04:35:38 AM
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!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 04:48:01 AM
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!!!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 05:11:31 AM
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!!!

Because his source failed him completely, that's why he's pretending not to be able to quote.

By the way, why aren't you arguing about rockets in vacuum anymore? And how about those Newton's 3rd law, have you done 100 posts yet?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 13, 2016, 05:14:41 AM
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!

And oh, look; another shitpost squeezed in as I type my reply...

*Yawn!*

So busted...
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 13, 2016, 05:23:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 05:35:19 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 13, 2016, 05:49:29 AM
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.

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?
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 06:06:06 AM
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.

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?
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?

Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 13, 2016, 06:13:02 AM
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.

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?
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?
Go back to sleep.  ;D
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 13, 2016, 06:30:15 AM
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.

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?
Yes.  That squashing against the sides of the rocket engine is the force pairing that causes the rocket to move.

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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2016, 06:39:17 AM
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.

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?
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?
Go back to sleep.  ;D

So you won't reply. Evasion noted.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 06:49:30 AM
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...

Wait, did that happen because I ranted about you faking my quote? Oh man, I really thought I was overreacting, but this is priceless. Apparently this forum is more monitored than I thought.

If you have access to the controls, of course.

But carry on with your mad denials; they are VERY convincing, I'm sure!

Again, this site is called "THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY". Any idea who runs it?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 06:50:38 AM
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.

OK, here's the explanation:
(http://s32.postimg.org/4vnlxycph/007a.png)
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: Papa Legba on June 13, 2016, 07:32:39 AM
That'd be great if it actually used Newton's 3rd Law.

But it doesn't therefore it's worthless.

Nice try though, shill.

Quote function still disabled btw!
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 08:01:07 AM
That'd be great if it actually used Newton's 3rd Law.

But it doesn't therefore it's worthless.

Calculations to predict stock exchange doesn't use Newton's 3rd Law either. Are they worthless too? Just ask those rich traders! Man, what's up with your logic?

And that post wasn't even for you. I was answering this:
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.

But since you asked for it, here it is:
(http://s32.postimg.org/h60t8oxcl/007b.png)
Surprise surprise, the results with and without Newton's 3rd Law are the same.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: hello_there on June 13, 2016, 08:02:41 AM
Quote function still disabled btw!

And for that, I don't give a shit. I really don't, why would I?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: markjo on June 13, 2016, 08:04:27 AM
Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

Here's another action/reaction pair to consider (from the same source, no less):
Quote from: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/The-Law-of-Action-Reaction-%28Revisited%29
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.
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: sceptimatic on June 13, 2016, 08:17:05 AM
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?
Title: Re: Newtons third law
Post by: aisantaros on June 13, 2016, 08:31:40 AM