.....

Can't you see how you have been duped into believing this, seriously?

So what does not make sense to you now?

1  How does a vacuum invalidate the laws of motion?

Quote

I answered it, you must have missed it.

No, you didn't answer it.

How does a vacuum invalidate Newton's laws?

2  How do engineers still manage to build stuff like skyscrapers, bridges tunnels under the sea etc if the science they use is completely wrong?

Quote

I have no problem with the science behind most things on Earth, my problem is with the laws of physics in space.

The laws of physics are the same everywhere.  Why do you think they suddenly change when you move away from the planet?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 24, 2012, 10:11:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2012, 10:09:08 AM

Can't you see how you have been duped into believing this, seriously?

So what does not make sense to you now?

It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

scepimatic I see what you are saying. But how does a rocket work in the atmosphere, but not a vacuum? Maybe you have already explained but I don't remember.

It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

An explosion releasing gases at high pressure makes no sense? it happens on any combustion engine, in cars for example.
If the explosion happens inside the rocket wont it push against the rocket? The gasses try to expand and find the rocket resistance, so they are pushing against it.
If you push something wont it move?
So I will ask again, which part makes no sense?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 24, 2012, 09:19:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2012, 09:16:58 AM

If you don't know how rockets work, why are you telling me that they work according to Newtons third law?

I don't know what causes the gas expansion at high preassure in a combustion engine, that doesn't cause it when you simple burn fuel, but i know it works because its used in cars, jets, misiles, etc. I was explaining how that expansion makes the rocket moves.

Can you draw me an example of what you mean by expansion making the rocket move. It doesn't matter if it's rough, I just want to see what the thinking is behind this.

Perhaps this might help:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This is what you are failing to grasp.
It's like you climbing into the back of the rocket and pushing it from inside.

When a rocket burns it's fuel, all the propellant wants to do is exit the rocket, it does not want to go back in and try to push it and neither do the expanding gases, yet once they are released from the engine out of the exhaust, it's then that the expansion happens and pushes against the atmosphere giving it lift.

In space, it has nothing to expand or push against, so it goes out like a dud firework.

You got that wrong, the expansion happens inside the rocket, and pushes in all the directions, you can't control that. Have you ever seen an explosion hapen in only one direction? The gases expand in all the directions, but can only get out of the rocket by the bottom of the propeler, so they don't push the rocket down.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Space Shuttle Launch Audio - play LOUD (no music) HD 1080p

Look at 1:40, all those gases going down, with all that energy, come from inside the rocket, and they are expanding in every direction, they only go out that way because is the only exit, so basically the same energy you see going down, is also inside the rocket trying to go up, also to the sides, but that energy is balanced, so it goes up. See the first video of markjo it explains that.

Yes I know the energy comes from inside the rocket engine and it's expelled underneath it to create lift.
It doesn't do it by pushing inside the rocket no matter  what they tell you.
We don't have a world full of rocket scientists, so it's not hard to be duped.

If I placed a bomb under a table and a brick on the table, if the explosion was strong the table and the brick would go flying upwards (if they dont break), andexplosion creates a push with the expansion of energy and gases, nobody needs to tell you that, neither you need to be a rocket scientist to know it. So what would happen if there was an explosion under a rocket? What about a continuous explotion strong enough to generate all the heat and gases, smoke, you see going down the rocket? The rocket is not pushing the ground, the explosion is pushing the rocket.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 24, 2012, 12:58:10 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2012, 12:09:50 PM

Yes I know the energy comes from inside the rocket engine and it's expelled underneath it to create lift.
It doesn't do it by pushing inside the rocket no matter  what they tell you.
We don't have a world full of rocket scientists, so it's not hard to be duped.

If I placed a bomb under a table and a brick on the table, if the explosion was strong the table and the brick would go flying upwards (if they dont break), andexplosion creates a push with the expansion of energy and gases, nobody needs to tell you that, neither you need to be a rocket scientist to know it. So what would happen if there was an explosion under a rocket? What about a continuous explotion strong enough to generate all the heat and gases, smoke, you see going down the rocket? The rocket is not pushing the ground, the explosion is pushing the rocket.

If a rocket relied on that, it would be blown to bits.
The rocket simply burns it's fuel, it does not continuously explode it's fuel under it, it's simply a controlled burn.

It needs to be burnt really fast in order to create the exansion of energy you see there, if it was just burned slowly it would not move at all.

Yes but it doesn't matter how fast it is burned, it's still just burning, not continually exploding forces up the inside of the rocket.

The only difference between an explosion and burning something is the speed, if you burn something gases are also expanding in all directions, an explosion is a rapid expansion of gases and energy (and heat) in all the directions. Look at the speed the gases comeing out of the rocket. That is closer to an explosion than to a "burning" of gas.

The way we are told a rocket works in space, is like throwing a  cannonball away from you whilst you are sat in a chair on wheels on a flat surface.
Now basically this is the simplified reason as to how a rocket works in space as well.
They are saying that, in space, if cannon ball after cannon ball was ejected from the rocket and each time a cannon ball is ejected, the rocket moves the opposite direction and so on and so on until all the cannon balls are released.

So going by that method, think about this.
Imagine those same cannon balls at the very moment of release being grabbed away with the same force as they would eject, what would happen?

Well think of it like this.

Let's go back to the cannon ball and the person sat on the wheeled chair.
The person attempts to throw that cannon ball at me but just as he/she is about to let go with the force they put on it, I immediately exert a snatch force equal to their throwing force, what would happen?

Well if you think hard about it, the ball would drop right in the middle of both of us...it would neither go forwards, nor backwards, it would just drop to the floor. leaving us two, simply in the same positions.

Apply that to the vacuum of space and your rocket stays put.

Conclusion:
Rocket cannot and will not work in the vacuum of space.

From a physic point of view if you push a cannon ball, it doesn't matter that you are a human and the ball is an object, it doesn't matter that they are your arms, or that you decided to push. It is just matter pushing matter, mass against mass. You are not more special than the ball, you don't get a special treatment, mass is all that matters. Which matter is pushing against which matter? No, the push is the same for both.

You say "what if I push the ball and some force snatches it from me?" The answer is "i stay in the same place". But what about the ball? It moves of course. But why did it move? Why would it get a different treatment than me? the ball is made of matter just as much as you are, it doesn't matter if they are your arms, and not the ball's arms. It is just matter pushing against matter, the same force you put against the ball, the ball will also put against you (that is action and reaction).

So if vacuum "snatched" or "sucked" everything we throw at it, it would "suck" or "snatch" us, just as much. If you want to pretend the ball is being snatched from our arms when we push it, you also neet to pretend we will be snatched away from the ball as well. Get it?

Let's go back to the cannon ball and the person sat on the wheeled chair.
The person attempts to throw that cannon ball at me but just as he/she is about to let go with the force they put on it, I immediately exert a snatch force equal to their throwing force, what would happen?

What happens to the ball after you let go doesn't matter.  All that matters is what happens as you are pushing the ball.  As you are pushing the ball, the ball is pushing you back.

Conclusion:
Rocket cannot and will not work in the vacuum of space.

Great, the world of science can now move forwards into a bright new age.

Are you going to publish and enlighten every single engineer and physicist on the planet that Newton's Laws have been falsified and that we should now be working my Sceptimatic Laws of Motion (what were they again?).

Once you have shown your mathematical proof and peer reviewed experimental evidence, I'm sure the Nobel Prize will on it's way.  I would book your ticket to Stockholm early, and get a good price if I were you.

You do have the maths and data to support your position don't you??  I'd hate to think you were just blowing off on an internet forum.

It doesn't do it by pushing inside the rocket no matter  what they tell you.
We don't have a world full of rocket scientists, so it's not hard to be duped.

Conclusion:
Rocket cannot and will not work in the vacuum of space.

So, what you're saying is the rest of the world's scientists are wrong, and you're right?

Good luck with that.

It is basically saying that you can push your own car by sitting in the drivers seat and pushing your bum forward  to make it move. It's a little bit more than that but in essence this is how it's supposed to work.

No, it's basically saying that you can push your own car by pushing outward from inside in every direction(against the windows, doors, roof, floor, etc), which would require a multitude of sceptimatics crammed inside. 

Remove the rear window. 

Now you have a bunch of force pushing forward from inside, and nothing pushing against the rear inside of the car as the sceptimatics are flying out the opening where the rear window used to be.

Just add a replenishing source of new sceptimatics to maintain the inside forward pressure while the rear sceptimatics continue flying out the back

If you insist rockets won't work in a vacuum, build a small vacuum chamber and conduct an experiment to prove it.

You don't understand what I've said. I'll try and make it a bit simpler.

If you had the cannonball on your chair and I was stood in front of you....You and your chair are the rocket, the cannonball is your fuel and I am the vacuum of space.

You exert your own energy on the cannon ball ready to throw it at me as hard as you can ...but, I snatch that cannon ball from you using the same snatching energy as your forward thrusting energy, I snatch that cannonball milliseconds (for instance) before you release it, meaning ...I, have took away the force that you were going to apply to the cannon ball.

The end result is, you do not go backwards, you stay seated where you are.

Can anyone understand what I'm saying here?

Yes I understood that, I will try to explain my point in a better way.
Physics work the same way for any object, the same way for the ball, the same way for us.
There is no reason for the ball to be snatched from us, but lets assume that happens. We would also be snatched away from the ball, just as the ball is snatched away from us. Why? because we are matter like the ball, we have mass, just like the ball, we are in vacuum like the ball. So the same movement the ball has, we will also have. So, if the ball is snatched away from us, we will also be snatched away from the ball.
Assuming me and the ball have the same mass, it would be like placing a mirror between us, the same movement on one side will happen on the other. There is no reason for movement only happening in one side.
That is what i meant saying that we don't get special treatment, there is no reason for the ball to react different than us.

"There would be no snatch effect on your side as your side is the forward force and energy, I would be the reaction force and energy in snatching your force and energy away from you, which totally cancels that force out."

That is the problem, when you push something, the same strength you apply to that something is applied back to you, if you punch a wall, you will feel the punch, if you try to push a wall, you will feel the push, you will feel the same force you are applying, if you kick a ball really slow (low force) you will barely feel anything in your foot (also because of the shoe) but the ball will move because of its smaller mass, if you kick it really fast (stronger) you will feel more the balls resistance.
But from a physic point of view, which is the action and which is the reaction is irrelevant, as both happen at the exact same time, not any second, millisecond or nanosecond after the first. It happens at the exact time both object touch each other, both feel the exact same force being applied to them, but in opposite directions. Which one will move more or less depends on the mass.

Besides my previous post, there are some things you are not saying right.

"I snatch that cannonball milliseconds (for instance) before you release it, meaning ...I, have took away the force that you were going to apply to the cannon ball."

I was already applying force the moment I started pushing, not the moment i released it. The movement: of me and the ball, also starts the moment I start pushing, not after the ball stops touching my hands (because i could just push the ball, while not grabbing it, so there is no "release").

And assuming this happens, it would be like thinking vacuum, which is literally nothing, constantly creates enough force to nullify any force applied on it. A pull, just as a push, requires force. It is also counter intuitive representing void with a person (you) making a pull at some precise moment. Because void is not something, its the lack of anything.

The air forces itself into vacuum here on earth because of the air pressure, not because of vacuum force

It's fine saying the rocket works against itself and I can see how people can subscribe to it.
The fuel in the rocket works against the rocket, so in effect, no matter how it's dressed up...the theory is that the rocket is pushing against itself.

No, because mass is actually leaving the rocket, the mass that leaves the rocket is the one pushing it, not the one still inside. I will say it again: Iit would be like you getting out of your car and pushing it once. End of the story, you don't get back in, you don't push it again, you just push it and say outside as your car moves away.

Quote from: markjo on November 24, 2012, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2012, 12:56:11 PM

Let's go back to the cannon ball and the person sat on the wheeled chair.
The person attempts to throw that cannon ball at me but just as he/she is about to let go with the force they put on it, I immediately exert a snatch force equal to their throwing force, what would happen?

What happens to the ball after you let go doesn't matter.  All that matters is what happens as you are pushing the ball.  As you are pushing the ball, the ball is pushing you back.

The very second your outward force is applied to that cannon ball, I snatch it away with equal force, the energy you were about to apply is immediately nullified by me, rendering your chair stranded to the spot.

Any force that I apply to the cannon ball (action) causes the cannon ball to push me back (reaction) regardless of when you snatch it.  The only question is how much force was I able to apply to the cannon ball before you snatched it away.

I think that the part that you don't get is that the energy going out the back of the rocket doesn't really matter.  It's the energy pushing against the rocket engine itself that pushes the rocket forward.  The opening in the combustion chamber is there so that there is an imbalance of forces within that chamber. 

Try it if you don't believe me, I just have on a computer chair on my wood floor using a heavy encyclopaedia.
I moved very slightly back by forcing my arms forward holding the book but I didn't let go of the book and I  moved forward back to the same spot, that was because I cancelled out the force.

You just proved my point.  As you pushed the book forwards, it pushed you backwards.  If someone took the book away from you just before you stopped pushing it, you would have kept going backwards (assuming that you were on a frictionless surface, of course).  However, since you didn't let go, the book pulled you back to your original position when your arms became fully extended.

This is what you are failing to grasp.

Are you finally going to decide whether you are the Average Joe who does not understand because nobody has explained in a simple way, or the maximum expert of Physics that the world has known, even better than Einstein and Newton together?

You are the one who is failing to grasp absolutely everything related to the Laws of Newton. As they say, ignorance is arrogant, and your ignorance is world class.

I'm far from infallible but I'm 100% steadfast on rockets not working in space.

You can't be 100% sure.
I explained to you why the rocket is not pushing against itself, also why it is illogical to think vacuum would snatch anything away from you.

"There would be no snatch effect on your side as your side is the forward force and energy, I would be the reaction force and energy in snatching your force and energy away from you, which totally cancels that force out."

That is the problem, when you push something, the same strength you apply to that something is applied back to you, if you punch a wall, you will feel the punch, if you try to push a wall, you will feel the push, you will feel the same force you are applying, if you kick a ball really slow (low force) you will barely feel anything in your foot (also because of the shoe) but the ball will move because of its smaller mass, if you kick it really fast (stronger) you will feel more the balls resistance.
But from a physic point of view, which is the action and which is the reaction is irrelevant, as both happen at the exact same time, not any second, millisecond or nanosecond after the first. It happens at the exact time both object touch each other, both feel the exact same force being applied to them, but in opposite directions. Which one will move more or less depends on the mass.

Besides my previous post, there are some things you are not saying right.

"I snatch that cannonball milliseconds (for instance) before you release it, meaning ...I, have took away the force that you were going to apply to the cannon ball."

I was already applying force the moment I started pushing, not the moment i released it. The movement: of me and the ball, also starts the moment I start pushing, not after the ball stops touching my hands (because i could just push the ball, while not grabbing it, so there is no "release").

And assuming this happens, it would be like thinking vacuum, which is literally nothing, constantly creates enough force to nullify any force applied on it. A pull, just as a push, requires force. It is also counter intuitive representing void with a person (you) making a pull at some precise moment. Because void is not something, its the lack of anything.

The air forces itself into vacuum here on earth because of the air pressure, not because of vacuum force

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 07:01:06 AM

It's fine saying the rocket works against itself and I can see how people can subscribe to it.
The fuel in the rocket works against the rocket, so in effect, no matter how it's dressed up...the theory is that the rocket is pushing against itself.

No, because mass is actually leaving the rocket, the mass that leaves the rocket is the one pushing it, not the one still inside. I will say it again: Iit would be like you getting out of your car and pushing it once. End of the story, you don't get back in, you don't push it again, you just push it and say outside as your car moves away.

Don't take things personal, this is not about who is right or who is wrong, is about what is right or what is wrong,

In a vacuum, your push of that ball whilst holding it, does nothing ...but if you released it, the ball would go floating into space.

Why would it be different in a vacuum than on earth?

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:12:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 04:27:54 PM

In a vacuum, your push of that ball whilst holding it, does nothing ...but if you released it, the ball would go floating into space.

Why would it be different in a vacuum than on earth?

Easy...

On Earth the ball has weight and you have weight.
In space, the ball weighs nothing and neither do you, you both weigh exactly the same....nothing.

Things may not have weight in space, but they still have mass.  Weight is not important to Newton's laws, mass is.

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:12:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 04:27:54 PM

In a vacuum, your push of that ball whilst holding it, does nothing ...but if you released it, the ball would go floating into space.

Why would it be different in a vacuum than on earth?

Easy...

On Earth the ball has weight and you have weight.
In space, the ball weighs nothing and neither do you, you both weigh exactly the same....nothing.

Do you consider near-Earth orbit as 'space'?

Ok I'll explain it better.

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

I would say the cannon ball.  The act of you giving me the cannon ball and plastic ball means I have to accelerate them to stop them in one place. I would be able to tell which ball has more mass.

Either way, mass is independent of gravitation. Mass of an object doesn't change depending on location.   

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount.  This would be an application of Newton's second law.

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:41:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:28:36 PM

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount.  This would be an application of Newton's second law.

Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?

He will use F=ma.  Force is required to accelerate mass.  He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one.  The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.

You are not going to win this argument either.   

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:41:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:28:36 PM

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount.  This would be an application of Newton's second law.

Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?

Since I'm weightless, I would throw each ball and see which one accelerates me more.

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:06:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:45:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:41:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:28:36 PM

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount.  This would be an application of Newton's second law.

Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?

He will use F=ma.  Force is required to accelerate mass.  He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one.  The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.

You are not going to win this argument either.

I'm not going to lose it either.

Refute what I posted or you do.   

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:23:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 06:20:19 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:06:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:45:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:41:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:28:36 PM

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount.  This would be an application of Newton's second law.

Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?

He will use F=ma.  Force is required to accelerate mass.  He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one.  The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.

You are not going to win this argument either.

I'm not going to lose it either.

Refute what I posted or you do.   

I'd like you to explain how he would be able to tell which ball requires more force. Remember, this is in "space"...

Force is independent of gravitation. Try again.   

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:28:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 06:26:05 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:23:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 06:20:19 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:06:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:45:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2012, 05:41:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 05:28:36 PM

If we were in space and I said to you," hold this cannon ball in one hand" then I gave you an equal sized solid plastic ball and said, "put this in your other hand and tell me which one has more mass"...which one would you say has more mass?

You can tell which has more mass by how much force it takes to accelerate each one by a given amount.  This would be an application of Newton's second law.

Ok then, I then say to you, "Throw both balls and tell me which one has more mass", how would you tell me which one?

He will use F=ma.  Force is required to accelerate mass.  He will be able to tell which ball requires more force to accelerate to the other balls velocity. Or he will see that the balls go away from him at different velocities if he applies the same force to each one.  The slower velocity ball will have the greater mass.

You are not going to win this argument either.

I'm not going to lose it either.

Refute what I posted or you do.   

I'd like you to explain how he would be able to tell which ball requires more force. Remember, this is in "space"...

Force is independent of gravitation. Try again.

We are talking about "space" have another go.

You are delusional. 
F=ma still.  What part of that equation changes between space and on earth? 

The full equation.

Everyone take note, this is why he lost. 

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 06:38:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 25, 2012, 06:35:59 PM

The full equation.

Everyone take note, this is why he lost.

I've lost nothing.

You can only verify force and mass on Earth, which is fine in the main, yet as far as space is concerned, it's a no go.

Mass=volume x density.  How does that change from earth to space?