Poll

Does Papa Legba understand newtons third law?

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

Total Members Voted: 73

Newtons third law

  • 1644 Replies
  • 322121 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1170 on: July 07, 2016, 07:47:37 AM »

So the exhaust DOES force pair with the rocket engine when the "dense" atmosphere tries to squeeze the exhaust back into the rocket engine?  Is that what you're trying to say?

You need to know what an actual exhaust is on a rocket, because it's not  what you think it is.
Put it this way. When you see burning fuel thrusting from your rocket, that is not the exhaust.
The cloud you see below that is the exhaust.
Can you see where the problem lies for you?


What about the countless simple experiments that prove those two laws do exist?

Let's talk about them. Give me NASA's version and let's go through them to see they represent reality or fantasy.

  Are you saying that mass does not need a force to accelerate it?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all, why do you imply it?


Gravity is pointing towards the earth, or any other sufficiently massive body.

Ok, so what happens inside the so called space station and the supposed satellites orbiting the so called Earth globe?
Zero gravity we are told. Is this the case?


I could be wrong, but it seems that you're under the impression that atmospheric resistance is a good thing.  Automobile designers would tend to disagree with you seeing as they spend countless hours in wind tunnels trying to get their cars to have as little wind resistance as possible.

It's nothing to do with it being a good thing. It's needed. It's what keeps everything moving. It's what keeps everything alive. It's a clear case of energy applied in an action to gain an equal and opposite reaction.
It doesn't matter whether you use a sleek car in a wind tunnel or a sleek car driving into atmosphere on a calm day to create the same effect.

Whatever energy is put into going against resistance, that resistance is overcome but it has to create an opposite effect, or reaction, which is to push back.

Think about a swimmer to get the gist of it, if you want to play honest.



Seriously, take a physics class that has lab sessions where they have simple experiment that walk you through step-by-step how all 3 of Newton's laws work.
I don't need a physics class for what I'm dealing with, because the classes are all based on naivety and blatant lies, depending on who's dealing.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1171 on: July 07, 2016, 07:48:47 AM »


^lol.

Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1172 on: July 07, 2016, 07:50:04 AM »
The issue isn't  about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.
But it doesn't operate as one unit.  A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B).  Why is that so hard to understand?
You are 100% wrong, that's why.
Then what force pairing does push the rocket?
The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere.  What force pairs with the rocket engine?
There's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.
The thing we are dealing with here is the force pairing required to achieve the ultimate goal, in which case, we are dealing with a rocket and an external force to enable this to happen.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.

Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.

Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?

It matters not because it's all fantasy.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.

That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
Lol

Inertia doesn't exist.

Lol
Tell me what inertia actually is.

I'm not here to teach you physics 0.00000001.

We already went over this. Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1173 on: July 07, 2016, 07:51:47 AM »
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Still no answer?
Start a new topic if you want answers off people.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1174 on: July 07, 2016, 07:53:02 AM »
The issue isn't  about taking them apart. the issue is about both operating when all components are pieced together, as ONE unit.
But it doesn't operate as one unit.  A rocket works by the force pairing of its engine (object A) and the propellant that it's ejecting at high speed (object B).  Why is that so hard to understand?
You are 100% wrong, that's why.
Then what force pairing does push the rocket?
The thrusting burning fuel against the resistant atmospheric pressure it pushes into.
That's your force pairing.
That is what creates the lift.
That's the force pairing between the exhaust and the atmosphere.  What force pairs with the rocket engine?
There's force pairing throughout any object that has moving parts and gases/liquids.
The thing we are dealing with here is the force pairing required to achieve the ultimate goal, in which case, we are dealing with a rocket and an external force to enable this to happen.
The force pairing required for the rocket to work is the burning fuel against the atmosphere, which vertically lifts the rocket due to the massive expansion of the fuel upon leaving the rocket, which expands into the dense atmosphere, which pushes the dense atmosphere aside but is EQUALLY pushed back onto as a SQUEEZE to create the lift required.

Remember when I told you that newtons laws 1 and 2 do not exist?...it's true, they don't, except in the minds of those that simply accept that it is a real law of physics.
Weirdly, rockets, namely NASA and co space (cough) rockets use Newtons supposed second law of motion. The mass clap trap that does not require any atmosphere to propel something in another direction. It's simply the force of mass upon mass, we are told, due to something called GRAVITY.

Where's the GRAVITY in your SPACE?

It matters not because it's all fantasy.
The only thing anyone needs to know about motion in basic form is that EVERYTHING moves because of an atmosphere and it moves due to energy/action against atmospheric pressure which MUST react with exactly the same force as a resistance to that action and it can be construed (if thought about) as always creating POTENTIAL energy on the move.

That might get lost on those who's aim is to merely deny the truth that rocket can not and will not and will not, ever go into something we get told, is space that is supposedly a vacuum that cannot (even if space existed) create a reaction to any action placed within it.
It should be as clear as a clean window.
Lol

Inertia doesn't exist.

Lol
Tell me what inertia actually is.

I'm not here to teach you physics 0.00000001.

We already went over this. Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?
Then stop whining and try to learn something in between texting whilst serving behind the counter.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1175 on: July 07, 2016, 07:53:16 AM »


^lol.

Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.

Watch out, foremost authority on gases sceptimatic has something to say!

Look man, that's a simplification, but gases are made of atoms and have mass. And I don't give a fuck about what your stupid model has to say about this. Or, if you don't like billiard balls, you can think of the gas hitting the tank as it expands.
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)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1176 on: July 07, 2016, 07:55:40 AM »


^lol.

Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.

^lol.

Everyone's gone full retard, like they always do when the scientific FACT of Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum is mentioned...

That's cos it disproves teh shpayze-rokkitz & they know it.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002

The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.
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 #1177 on: July 07, 2016, 08:00:55 AM »
Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?

Please link us to this post.

Lol bet you don't you little liar.

Meanwhile, lol at this...

Again:



An explosion between two gas molecules?

But isn't the 'explosion' in a rocket caused by expanding gas molecules?

So there must be expanding gas molecules between your two gas molecules?

Please redraw your lulzy cartoon to include them, eh?

The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.

LMFAO!!!

RUN AWAY..! 

FLEE!

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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1178 on: July 07, 2016, 08:02:19 AM »


^lol.

Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.

Watch out, foremost authority on gases sceptimatic has something to say!

Look man, that's a simplification, but gases are made of atoms and have mass. And I don't give a fuck about what your stupid model has to say about this. Or, if you don't like billiard balls, you can think of the gas hitting the tank as it expands.
Swearing will not make you right when you're blatantly wrong.
No gas is going to hit the tank like you think. The gas is not loose. I repeat, the gas is not loose.
No atoms/molecules or whatever name you want to bestow upon a gas/liquid or whatever, are free moving particles like you think.
Compression is a name that shows things to be SQUASHED together.
EXPANSION is a term used to see those compressed molecules/atoms or whatever you want to call them, start to release from the compression they are under. This happens on so many levels that we couldn't begin to count.
From liquid fuels to water to gases to ice, etc, etc. EXPANSION AND COMPRESSION....no true freedom for particles.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1179 on: July 07, 2016, 08:06:53 AM »
I await your Nobel Prize winning paper.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1180 on: July 07, 2016, 08:10:59 AM »
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Still no answer

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1181 on: July 07, 2016, 08:19:49 AM »


^lol.

Oh yeah, just say lol. That's a very valid point, you convinced me.
Your gases are not billiard balls. They don't work like you think.

Watch out, foremost authority on gases sceptimatic has something to say!

Look man, that's a simplification, but gases are made of atoms and have mass. And I don't give a fuck about what your stupid model has to say about this. Or, if you don't like billiard balls, you can think of the gas hitting the tank as it expands.
Swearing will not make you right when you're blatantly wrong.
No gas is going to hit the tank like you think. The gas is not loose. I repeat, the gas is not loose.
No atoms/molecules or whatever name you want to bestow upon a gas/liquid or whatever, are free moving particles like you think.
Compression is a name that shows things to be SQUASHED together.
EXPANSION is a term used to see those compressed molecules/atoms or whatever you want to call them, start to release from the compression they are under. This happens on so many levels that we couldn't begin to count.
From liquid fuels to water to gases to ice, etc, etc. EXPANSION AND COMPRESSION....no true freedom for particles.

I already said that I don't give a fuck what your stupid model that is disproven by facts has to say about this, because it's not the subject that is being discussed. Legba thinks rockets go against N3. You're saying that they go against your idiotic hypothesis. Good. We know. But it doesn't matter, because it's wrong anyways.
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)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15923
  • +69/-57
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1182 on: July 07, 2016, 08:23:15 AM »
Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?

Please link us to this post.

Lol bet you don't you little liar.

Meanwhile, lol at this...

Again:



An explosion between two gas molecules?

But isn't the 'explosion' in a rocket caused by expanding gas molecules?

So there must be expanding gas molecules between your two gas molecules?

Please redraw your lulzy cartoon to include them, eh?

The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.

LMFAO!!!

RUN AWAY..! 

FLEE!


Stop being an idiot. The reason why the two gas molecules move apart from each other (the "explosion") is because they're heated up. And contrary to what you think, free expansion does not mean that gases are somehow instantaneously launched at an infinite distance from each other.
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)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1183 on: July 07, 2016, 08:25:43 AM »
Remember you cried when I asked you what pushes a golf ball after the golfer hits it?

Please link us to this post.

Lol bet you don't you little liar.

Meanwhile, lol at this...

Again:



An explosion between two gas molecules?

But isn't the 'explosion' in a rocket caused by expanding gas molecules?

So there must be expanding gas molecules between your two gas molecules?

Please redraw your lulzy cartoon to include them, eh?

The free expansion of gases in vacuum is, believe it or not, completely unrelated to the topic.

LMFAO!!!

RUN AWAY..! 

FLEE!


Stop being an idiot. The reason why the two gas molecules move apart from each other (the "explosion") is because they're heated up. And contrary to what you think, free expansion does not mean that gases are somehow instantaneously launched at an infinite distance from each other.
You better understand what heated up means. Personally speaking, I think you should just give up. It's clear you're only here to stand behind the regulars (assuming you are not a sock puppet) and chant garbage.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1184 on: July 07, 2016, 08:26:35 AM »
Legba thinks rockets go against N3.

No I do not.

Stop Lying.

I know for a fact that rockets obey N3 because they push against a second, external mass to themselves.

That mass is the atmosphere through which they move.

Which is why they cannot work in 'space', which is a vacuum.

For further proof, see Free Expansion of gasses in a vacuum, which states a gas does no work in a vacuum.

Please try to use SCIENCE rather than LIES as a basis for your strange sci-fi cult beliefs, eh, Deaf Dick?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1185 on: July 07, 2016, 08:29:28 AM »
Here is N3 again; none of the Clowns here seem interested in posting or discussing it, but I 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.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1186 on: July 07, 2016, 08:37:11 AM »
So the exhaust DOES force pair with the rocket engine when the "dense" atmosphere tries to squeeze the exhaust back into the rocket engine?  Is that what you're trying to say?
You need to know what an actual exhaust is on a rocket, because it's not  what you think it is.
Put it this way. When you see burning fuel thrusting from your rocket, that is not the exhaust.
The cloud you see below that is the exhaust.
Can you see where the problem lies for you?
If I could see the problem, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If the cloud below the rocket is the exhaust, then what is that stuff coming out of the rocket engines?


What about the countless simple experiments that prove those two laws do exist?

Let's talk about them. Give me NASA's version and let's go through them to see they represent reality or fantasy.
NASA's version is just like everyone else's version.  Well, everyone except for you and Papa Legba, that is.

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force.

The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:

F = m * a

For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.

The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects. The third law can be used to explain the generation of lift by a wing and the production of thrust by a jet engine.


  Are you saying that mass does not need a force to accelerate it?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all, why do you imply it?
Because that's what Newton's second law say and you say that it's BS.


Gravity is pointing towards the earth, or any other sufficiently massive body.

Ok, so what happens inside the so called space station and the supposed satellites orbiting the so called Earth globe?
Zero gravity we are told. Is this the case?
The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.


I could be wrong, but it seems that you're under the impression that atmospheric resistance is a good thing.  Automobile designers would tend to disagree with you seeing as they spend countless hours in wind tunnels trying to get their cars to have as little wind resistance as possible.

It's nothing to do with it being a good thing. It's needed. It's what keeps everything moving. It's what keeps everything alive. It's a clear case of energy applied in an action to gain an equal and opposite reaction.
It doesn't matter whether you use a sleek car in a wind tunnel or a sleek car driving into atmosphere on a calm day to create the same effect.
*sigh*  What exactly do you think is going on between the air and the cars in this video?



Seriously, take a physics class that has lab sessions where they have simple experiment that walk you through step-by-step how all 3 of Newton's laws work.
I don't need a physics class for what I'm dealing with, because the classes are all based on naivety and blatant lies, depending on who's dealing.
How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?
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.

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1187 on: July 07, 2016, 08:45:36 AM »
Because Sceptimatic has an extreme case of special snowflake syndrome, he is the only person in the whole world that can "see the truth".

?

EDao2

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1188 on: July 07, 2016, 09:06:25 AM »
Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.

So you completely agree with me then.

Rockets work via F=PA & therefore cannot function in 'space' because a gas does no work in a vacuum so P will be Zero; all completely in accord with Newton & thermodynamics.

Or are you another Trekky who thinks a finite gas-based system can create meaningful pressure against an infinite vacuum?

Got some 'math' to justify that?

You cherry-picked and misread what I said.

T = (dm/dt)Ve + (pe - po)Ae

Also, the pressure here has two sources- the one exerted internally by the exploding fuel and the one created by the difference between the rocket's internal pressure and the pressure outside of it.

Anyway, you can clearly see how the reactionary forces of the exploding gas creates a force on the rocket due to pressure (Fgas = Ape). Therefore, the rocket doesn't violate Newton's Third Law and is, in fact, using it to create thrust.

You somehow missed the mention of multiple pressures which creates the force due to the pressure that only makes up one half of the right side of the equation.

T = Ve(dm/dt) + Ae(pe-po)

The differences between the pressure inside the rocket and outside of it create a total pressure that acts as a source of force. Alternatively, when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure:

T = Ve(dm/dt) + Aepe

There's no need for the gas to work outside of the rocket. Your criticism depends on the notion that the exiting gas must work against something else for the rocket to function which isn't true. The point here is that internal pressure, not external, is the cause of lift in a vacuum.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1189 on: July 07, 2016, 09:22:44 AM »
If the cloud below the rocket is the exhaust, then what is that stuff coming out of the rocket engines?
The force. You know that force that requires another force to pair off?
The burn that comes out of the nozzle is the first force which expands into the dense atmosphere, which squeezes back. It creates a huge resistance in equal measures.
The cloud is the energy expended (note I said "expended") which means "exhausted" because that is the rocket exhausted fuel, meaning no more thrusting burn..



Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
This is where Newtons first law is rendered useless because everything is in motion. Nothing is ever at rest.
And no, that is not trivial; it's absolutely pertinent.

As for the UNIFORM motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This can only apply in your fictional vacuum. It cannot apply in an atmosphere because nothing can carry on in a uniform manner in an atmosphere, because there is always an external force resisting it, not matter how strong or weak.



This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.
This inertia comes up but inertia cannot be explained as anything. We've been through this. This is another classic case of,  "it just is"...
Atmospheric pressure upon an energy force to overcome the resistance of any object.



The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity.
Only in a fictional space vacuum, right? or are you going to deny this?


If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest.
Yes but it will never be at zero unless it's in a fictional vacuum, right?



The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.
 The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:

F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.
It doesn't really make any sense as any law at all.



The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.
Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all but still, even going by it, we still have the mass inside the supposed crafts as being like outside and thus, like Newy boy supposed stated. Mass upon mass will change the motion, yet the ISS always manages to never sway from it's supposed path due to mass movement inside of it by those ever exercising bad actors clanging about with weights and using the bars to chase each other in gorilla suits and such.
Never mind, eh?


  What exactly do you think is going on between the air and the cars in this video?


I've already explained it.


How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?
How do people learn to swim if they've never taken a swimming class?
How do people learn to hunt if they've never been shown?
How do people invent things of nobody's shown them?

It's called using your brain and sifting out the good from the bad and learning from mistakes, as well as making sure that bad habits are avoided, like people adhering to certain ways/traits for no other reason than trusting their peers rather than their own senses.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1190 on: July 07, 2016, 09:24:54 AM »
Because Sceptimatic has an extreme case of special snowflake syndrome, he is the only person in the whole world that can "see the truth".
No, not at all. I'm one of many people that can think for themselves and actually see through the bullshit that is constantly fed to us, which is backed up by people like you that probably don't know any better, yet are happy to follow the MASS trend.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1191 on: July 07, 2016, 09:27:53 AM »
when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure

What internal pressure?

Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.

And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?

F=PA, remember?

When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?

Here is N3 again, in case you are as forgetful as every other clown here:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

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

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

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

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


Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...

I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?

*Yawn!*
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 #1192 on: July 07, 2016, 09:39:51 AM »
You already agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it. So it's not zero pressure due to free expantion.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1193 on: July 07, 2016, 09:47:55 AM »
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Ever gonna answer this?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 09:51:03 AM by Empirical »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1194 on: July 07, 2016, 09:50:17 AM »
Hey Scepti, since I know you check this thread and in this chaos no one will care if I go of topic, I'll ask you an unrelated question.
How does your model of the atom explain the photoelectric effect?
If you don't know what it is, it's that if you shine UV light on a negatively charged piece of metal, it loses its negative charge. Same thing doesn't happen if the metal has a positive charge, or if the light is visible instead of UV. Why is this, what is special about a negative charge compared to a positive one.
This is an easy thing to test with a gold leaf electroscope, as the loss of charge causes the leaf to fall.
http://www.gcsescience.com/pse4-electrostatic-gold-leaf-electroscope.htm
Answer this first.
Make a seperate topic up. You've already been told.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1195 on: July 07, 2016, 09:52:52 AM »
You already agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it.

Lying again.

I said no such thing & you know it because you will not link to the post where I did so.

But don't worry, you won't get banned for all your lies, as you have special shill privileges on your special shill forum...

You are Special, socky-boy!

when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure

What internal pressure?

Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.

And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?

F=PA, remember?

When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?

Here is N3 again, in case you are as forgetful as every other clown here:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

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

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

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

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


Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...

I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?

*Yawn!*
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 #1196 on: July 07, 2016, 09:58:37 AM »
You already agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it.

Lying again.

I said no such thing & you know it because you will not link to the post where I did so.

But don't worry, you won't get banned for all your lies, as you have special shill privileges on your special shill forum...

You are Special, socky-boy!

when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure

What internal pressure?

Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.

And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?

F=PA, remember?

When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?

Here is N3 again, in case you are as forgetful as every other clown here:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

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

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

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

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


Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...

I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?

*Yawn!*
So if I leave my car running while I try and fill the tank it will take infinite gallons of gas?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1197 on: July 07, 2016, 10:07:31 AM »
So you can't find the post & are now changing the subject?

Because you are a Liar?

Cool; you're protected here so will get away with it as always...

Anyhoo:

when outside pressure is 0 as in the case of a vacuum like Outer Space, the internal pressure acts as the source of force due to pressure

What internal pressure?

Unless your rocket is a sealed unit there will be none; the Joule Expansion experiment proves this beyond a doubt.

And how can a force be created when there is nothing to create pressure against?

F=PA, remember?

When there is 0 pressure at the area of the nozzle exit, as in a vacuum, then what is the accelerated mass pressing against in order to create a force-pair, & thus motion, as specifically required by N3?

Here is N3 again, in case you are as forgetful as every other clown here:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

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

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

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

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


Generally speaking though, LOL at you joining & immediately going after me with your second post...

I am not a flat earther btw; but you already knew that didn't you?

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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1198 on: July 07, 2016, 10:15:02 AM »
If the cloud below the rocket is the exhaust, then what is that stuff coming out of the rocket engines?
The force. You know that force that requires another force to pair off?
Do you mean a force like the one exerted by the rocket engine pushing back against that force coming out of it?

The burn that comes out of the nozzle is the first force which expands into the dense atmosphere, which squeezes back. It creates a huge resistance in equal measures.
The cloud is the energy expended (note I said "expended") which means "exhausted" because that is the rocket exhausted fuel, meaning no more thrusting burn..
Just out of curiosity, does that cloud have any mass to it?  Say, about the same mass as the propellant being burned.

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
This is where Newtons first law is rendered useless because everything is in motion. Nothing is ever at rest.
And no, that is not trivial; it's absolutely pertinent.
Do you understand the concept of relative motion?  For example, a car is in motion relative to the ground, but a passenger is not in motion relative to the car.

As for the UNIFORM motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This can only apply in your fictional vacuum. It cannot apply in an atmosphere because nothing can carry on in a uniform manner in an atmosphere, because there is always an external force resisting it, not matter how strong or weak.
Apparently you don't realize that most laws of physics refer to idealized conditions.  Of course there are always forces acting on everything.  However, Newton's laws allow us to determine the magnitude of each of those forces.

This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.
This inertia comes up but inertia cannot be explained as anything. We've been through this. This is another classic case of,  "it just is"...
Inertia is simply the tendency of an object to keep doing what it's doing.  You need to add an external force, such as friction or a push, in order to overcome that tendency.

Atmospheric pressure upon an energy force to overcome the resistance of any object.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.  Atmospheric pressure is a force, but it acts as a force to resist the motion of an object more often than not (wind resistance).

The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity.
Only in a fictional space vacuum, right? or are you going to deny this?
Yes, it's referring to an ideal, friction free environment, but it doesn't necessarily need to be space.  After all, lubricant companies go to great lengths to thy and reduce friction as much as possible here on earth.

If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest.
Yes but it will never be at zero unless it's in a fictional vacuum, right?
No.  A paper weight sitting on your desk is at rest, isn't it?

The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force.
 The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:

F = m * a
For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.
It doesn't really make any sense as any law at all.
What's wrong with it?  ???


The ISS and satellites are in a constant state of free fall due to their velocity balancing the force of earth's gravity.
Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense at all but still, even going by it, we still have the mass inside the supposed crafts as being like outside and thus, like Newy boy supposed stated. Mass upon mass will change the motion, yet the ISS always manages to never sway from it's supposed path due to mass movement inside of it by those ever exercising bad actors clanging about with weights and using the bars to chase each other in gorilla suits and such.
Never mind, eh?
Orbits are probably better a topic for another thread.


How would you know that if you've never taken a physics class?
How do people learn to swim if they've never taken a swimming class?
How do people learn to hunt if they've never been shown?
How do people invent things of nobody's shown them?
Usually not as well as when someone has shown them.

It's called using your brain and sifting out the good from the bad and learning from mistakes, as well as making sure that bad habits are avoided, like people adhering to certain ways/traits for no other reason than trusting their peers rather than their own senses.
It's been said that you should learn from other people's mistakes because there's a pretty good chance that you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

As I've said before, a good physics course will take you through step-by-step how and why these physical laws came to be so that you can properly judge their validity for yourself.
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.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1199 on: July 07, 2016, 10:15:20 AM »
Stop being a crybaby and answer the question. If I leave my car running while filling to tank, will it take infinite gallons of gas?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.