Poll

Does Papa Legba understand newtons third law?

No
67 (87%)
Yes
10 (13%)

Total Members Voted: 73

Newtons third law

  • 1644 Replies
  • 322109 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #840 on: June 23, 2016, 07:31:26 PM »
You poor useless bastard...

Learn to fucking read, energy-vampire shill-spaz:

*** snip shitspam copypasta ***

No escaping Truth, shills.
Please point out where that copypasta (or any credible source) specifically says that one object cannot carry a second object to use as a reaction mass.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #841 on: June 24, 2016, 06:42:37 AM »
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that a rocket (singular noun) is ONE object?

Oh, & STFU Geoff.

Why not just drop your psychotic disinfo-act & admit I've answered you already?

Cos you ain't getting another.

Here you go; simple scientific truth:

Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.

LMFAO!!!
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?

A Push.

You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.

Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.

Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.




A person on ice skates pushes a wall. Let's take that person and the wall, and call both of them something. Let's call them something you'd like, uh... gigglyboop! Do you like the sound of that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. Now that the person and the wall are both described by a singular noun (gigglyboop), I guess N3 doesn't work on them anymore, and the person will not be pushed backwards, right?

That's your logic.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #842 on: June 24, 2016, 09:44:57 AM »
A person on ice skates pushes a wall. Let's take that person and the wall, and call both of them something. Let's call them something you'd like, uh... gigglyboop! Do you like the sound of that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. Now that the person and the wall are both described by a singular noun (gigglyboop), I guess N3 doesn't work on them anymore, and the person will not be pushed backwards, right?

That's your logic.

LMFAO!!!

You are mental.

Please point out where that copypasta (or any credible source) specifically says that one object cannot carry a second object to use as a reaction mass.

Please point out why you are now claiming that a source YOU shills posted at the very start of this thread is now mere 'copypasta'?

Could it be because it proves you wrong?

A rocket does not carry a 'reaction mass'; it carries an 'action mass'.

An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.

A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:

Number of objects a rocket is: TWO.

LMFAO!!!
What exactly do you think is coming out the tail end of the rocket?

A Push.

You can work out the rest by reading this (especially the bit about the bird):

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
A variety of action-reaction force pairs are evident in nature. Consider the propulsion of a fish through the water. A fish uses its fins to push water backwards. But a push on the water will only serve to accelerate the water. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the water must also be pushing the fish forwards, propelling the fish through the water. The size of the force on the water equals the size of the force on the fish; the direction of the force on the water (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the fish (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for fish to swim.

Consider the flying motion of birds. A bird flies by use of its wings. The wings of a bird push air downwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the air must also be pushing the bird upwards. The size of the force on the air equals the size of the force on the bird; the direction of the force on the air (downwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the bird (upwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for birds to fly.

Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.

No escaping Truth, Angry Shills.

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #843 on: June 24, 2016, 09:47:26 AM »
Object B is the exhaust.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11244
  • +10/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #844 on: June 24, 2016, 10:30:42 AM »
Just a reminder it is 54 or 85.7 %.

I am going to try out for a professional foot ball team, then tell them THEY all suck and should listen to me.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #845 on: June 24, 2016, 11:10:53 AM »
A person on ice skates pushes a wall. Let's take that person and the wall, and call both of them something. Let's call them something you'd like, uh... gigglyboop! Do you like the sound of that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. Now that the person and the wall are both described by a singular noun (gigglyboop), I guess N3 doesn't work on them anymore, and the person will not be pushed backwards, right?

That's your logic.

LMFAO!!!

You are mental.


If you find what I stated mental, you should know that it is essentially what you're saying. Your issue is that you're used to referring to a rocket as a "rocket", which is a singular noun. That's literally it, that's the only reason you think rockets can't work in a vacuum, because "rocket" is a singular noun. This is ridiculous.

"An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.
"

And what do you think the rocket fuel is?
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #846 on: June 24, 2016, 12:55:34 PM »
If you find what I stated mental, you should know that it is essentially what you're saying.

LMFAO!!!

Let's see what Lord Rockingham's XI has to say about your lulzy hypothesis:



I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #847 on: June 24, 2016, 05:41:52 PM »
If you find what I stated mental, you should know that it is essentially what you're saying.

LMFAO!!!

Let's see what Lord Rockingham's XI has to say about your lulzy hypothesis:
<< omitted  "Lord Rockinghorse's XI" video! >>
And "Lord Rockinghorse's XI" is an expert on the subject, just like Puppy Loghead! What was the subject again? We seem to have wandered so far away!

That's right it about the proven fact that Papa knows nothing about N 3, and has to quote bits of his kiddy reference material and leave out bits that prove him wrong!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #848 on: June 24, 2016, 07:01:18 PM »
Please point out where that copypasta (or any credible source) specifically says that one object cannot carry a second object to use as a reaction mass.

Please point out why you are now claiming that a source YOU shills posted at the very start of this thread is now mere 'copypasta'?

Could it be because it proves you wrong?
Not at all.

It's copypasta because you've been copying and pasting the same thing over and over and over again.

A rocket does not carry a 'reaction mass'; it carries an 'action mass'.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "action mass".  Is it something your dark web aerospace engineer buddies taught you?

An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.
And just what action is the rocket producing?

A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:
Yes, because that is a comprehensive list of every possible action/reaction pair, right?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #849 on: June 24, 2016, 08:15:00 PM »
An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.
And just what action is the rocket producing?

A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:
Yes, because that is a comprehensive list of every possible action/reaction pair, right?

It's funny how Papa just ignores the rest of his "authority" for his action/reaction pairs. Here is a bit:
Quote
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
from Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion
That's the last bit of Papa's "borrowed quote", though most people would have acknowledged the source!

And then the bit he quite carefully omitted:
Quote
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Then the answer:
Quote
Check your understanding answer
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.

So we have 2 objects! The rocket AND the exhaust gases! 1 + 1 = 2!

And he NEVER has anything to say about this little omission?

?

Woody

  • 1144
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #850 on: June 24, 2016, 09:14:01 PM »
An entirely separate mass from the rocket is required for a reaction to the rocket's action to be produced.
And just what action is the rocket producing?

A fellow called Newton described it quite well hundreds of years ago; here are the details:
Yes, because that is a comprehensive list of every possible action/reaction pair, right?

It's funny how Papa just ignores the rest of his "authority" for his action/reaction pairs. Here is a bit:
Quote
Examples of Interaction Force Pairs
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
from Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion
That's the last bit of Papa's "borrowed quote", though most people would have acknowledged the source!

And then the bit he quite carefully omitted:
Quote
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
Then the answer:
Quote
Check your understanding answer
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.

So we have 2 objects! The rocket AND the exhaust gases! 1 + 1 = 2!

And he NEVER has anything to say about this little omission?

To be fair I think his source omitted it.  I think there is a few sites using the same source material they just use all or some of it.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

To his discredit he seemed to have avoided any source that mentioned rockets.

I think his copy and paste is from here:

http://www.mwit.ac.th/~physicslab/applet_04/physics_classroom/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html

If it is he missed this, which is easy if you do not scroll down to the questions:

2. Rockets are unable to accelerate in space because ...

A. there is no air in space for the rockets to push off of.
B. there is no gravity is in space.
C. there is no air resistance in space.
D. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space.

Papa would answer A, the source says the answer is D and supplies a short explanation.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #851 on: June 24, 2016, 11:44:19 PM »
Already done this you sad drunken old buffoon.

Look how your Q&A read when placed together:

For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.

They rub it in your face that they're full of shit.

And of course a rocket is One Object...

Everyone who is not blind & can count knows this.

Just give it up, shills; you're finished.

Oh, & tweak the numbers on your fake poll too; they're very lulzy at the moment...

Silly superstitious dickheads!

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #852 on: June 25, 2016, 12:48:55 AM »

Oh, & tweak the numbers on your fake poll too; they're very lulzy at the moment...


Yes I agree, do you really have 8 alts (+SepticTank') to scrape up your 9 votes?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #853 on: June 25, 2016, 01:37:05 AM »
'because nonsense...'

lol.

Put your bottle down & get to the opticians Geoff.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #854 on: June 25, 2016, 06:22:41 AM »
'because nonsense...'

lol.

Put your bottle down & get to the opticians Geoff.

OK, a gigglyboop is a singular noun, therefore if I push a wall while on ice skates I will not be pushed back. I get it, you've said it enough times. The rocket fuel should not be considered a separate object, because you can't see it from the outside. We get it already.

The funny thing is that you pretend to have any knowledge in aeronautics, astrodynamics, and quantum mechanics. Lol.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

SkepticMike

  • 415
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #855 on: June 25, 2016, 06:51:53 AM »
It seems PL can't get beyond propeller based motive dynamics.
Turkish joke. A prisoner goes to the jail's library to borrow a book. The librarian says: "We don't have this book, but we have its author"

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #856 on: June 25, 2016, 07:29:31 AM »
Already done this you sad drunken old buffoon.

Look how your Q&A read when placed together:

For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.

They rub it in your face that they're full of shit.
Papa Legba does not understand the purpose of the ellipsis in answer d.

And of course a rocket is One Object...
Yes, and the propellant is another, separate object.

Just like a car is one object and petrol is another object.

Silly superstitious dickheads!
Says the voodou loa.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #857 on: June 25, 2016, 08:06:24 AM »
a car is one object and petrol is another object.

*Yawn!*

Read again, dickhead:

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 got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • +0/-0
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #858 on: June 25, 2016, 09:15:45 AM »
So you finally figured up how to disprove Noether's theorem? You finally read up on Lagrangians, or still chasing ducks?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #859 on: June 25, 2016, 10:40:08 AM »
a car is one object and petrol is another object.

*Yawn!*

Read again, dickhead:

Action-Reaction Examples

We've gone through some examples already. But what are some other action-reaction examples? Let's look at a rocket engine. Newton's Third Law explains how rocket engines work. Hot gases are forced out of the back of the rocket. This is the action force. The gases exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is the reaction force. The reaction pushes the rocket upward and off the ground.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #860 on: June 26, 2016, 03:58:38 AM »
So the gases are both the action & the reaction force?

Cool story bro...

Shame Newton states it's impossible.

Any more brainwashing propaganda links you wanna quote?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 06:53:04 AM by Jack »
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • +0/-0
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #861 on: June 26, 2016, 06:29:30 AM »
lol

do the calculations yourself

lol

not a physicist

lol

can't even read up on Noether

lol

doesnt understand conservation laws

lol
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

JoshPerplexed

  • 79
  • +0/-0
  • Strange creatures, these are...
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #862 on: June 26, 2016, 07:45:15 AM »
So the gases are both the action & the reaction force?

Gases aren't forces.

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #863 on: June 26, 2016, 10:07:00 AM »
So the gases are both the action & the reaction force?

Cool story bro...

Shame Newton states it's impossible.

Any more brainwashing propaganda links you wanna quote?
The action force acts on rocket, reaction on gas. It's that simple.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #864 on: June 26, 2016, 12:36:27 PM »
Gases aren't forces.

The action force acts on rocket, reaction on gas. It's that simple.

You really do need to read your own bullshit.

Look:

Hot gases are forced out of the back of the rocket. This is the action force. The gases exert an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is the reaction force. The reaction pushes the rocket upward and off the ground.

Please stop contradicting yourselves & admit you do not have a clue what you are trying to say.

Oh, & STFU Conker.

Noether's Theorem has nothing to do with rocket thrust.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

hello_there

  • 253
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #865 on: June 26, 2016, 02:09:52 PM »
Well it's been 30 pages and going nowhere. By the way, my math is proving PL wrong and it's still undisputed, since PL hasn't posted his math to counter mine.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1789395#msg1789395

What makes this difficult is, and it's pretty obvious for everyone, that PL actually understands Newton's 3rd law, yet pretending not to (I know you want to cherry-pick this sentence Papa, go ahead then, I dare you). It's probably gonna go another 30 pages without going anywhere. But keep up the good fun Papa, everyone loves mocking you. And I think it's great if you raise the target to 1000 N3 posts if you haven't reached it already.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #866 on: June 26, 2016, 02:46:19 PM »
Well it's been 30 pages and going nowhere. By the way, my math is proving PL wrong and it's still undisputed, since PL hasn't posted his math to counter mine.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1789395#msg1789395

What makes this difficult is, and it's pretty obvious for everyone, that PL actually understands Newton's 3rd law, yet pretending not to (I know you want to cherry-pick this sentence Papa, go ahead then, I dare you). It's probably gonna go another 30 pages without going anywhere. But keep up the good fun Papa, everyone loves mocking you. And I think it's great if you raise the target to 1000 N3 posts if you haven't reached it already.
This whole FE thing involves completely understanding how our planet works otherwise there is a danger of slipping up when trying to justify a FE.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • +0/-0
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #867 on: June 26, 2016, 05:02:13 PM »
It kinda does, legbye, since it is the basis for the law of conservation of linear momentum, which is the basic principle that rocket use.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #868 on: June 26, 2016, 10:26:24 PM »
Bullshit.

The basis for conservation of linear momentum is Newton's 1st law.

So many lies, from so many shills.

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • +0/-0
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #869 on: June 26, 2016, 11:18:13 PM »
So you BELIEVE in conservation of linear momentum. Great. Do the lagrangian yourself mate
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.