Poll

Does Papa Legba understand newtons third law?

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

Total Members Voted: 73

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 55   Go Down

Newtons third law

  • 1644 Replies
  • 322123 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1380 on: July 11, 2016, 01:47:26 PM »
Quote from: Empirical on July 11, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.

It can't.

Which is why it won't work in one.

When it is in atmosphere, which it can react with, then it will work.

However, it will lose mass in both & therefore cannot be described as an isolated system...

Which is what your entire bullshit argument depended on btw...

You dumb as dogshit fucking shill.

Quote from: EDao2 on July 11, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
Blah, lie, bullshit...

You neglect to mention that the combustion of fuel & oxidiser in your video can only be sustained by the presence of a plasma.

Do your 'shpayze-rokkitz' sustain their combustion in plasma?

No; they do not.

So right off the bat you are shown to be a Liar.

As you further are by your attempt to shift the onus of proof for your thermodynamics-violating claims onto me.

Summary: fuck off shill.

But not without laughing at your spelling of 'empirically' first:

Quote from: EDao2 on July 11, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
empiempirically

LOL!!!

What a puffed-up fucking fraud you are.

Now this:

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.

Logged
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 #1381 on: July 11, 2016, 02:14:31 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: Empirical on July 11, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.

It can't.
Then that means that a rocket in a vacuum is an isolated system.
Logged
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 #1382 on: July 11, 2016, 02:41:08 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: Empirical on July 11, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
So you are saying the rocket in a vacuum can interact with it's surroundings, how can it interact with a vacuum.

It can't.
So you admit that the rocket is a isolated system then.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/isolated_system
Quote
Noun

isolated system ‎(plural isolated systems)

    (physics) A system that does not interact with its surroundings, that is, its total energy and mass stay constant.
Where does this definition mention losing mass, after a "that is". Interaction with surroundings is needed to lose mass.
Also the rocket & fuel system doesn't lose mass, does the fuel cease to exist after it leaves the rocket, no it doesn't, so no mass is lost.
Look at it this way, before you have a rocket with gas in it, then you have a rocket with gas outside of it, no mass has disappeared.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 02:48:49 PM by Empirical »
Logged
?

nexzus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1383 on: July 11, 2016, 02:48:26 PM »
Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2016, 02:14:31 PM

Quote from: Empirical on July 11, 2016, 02:41:08 PM

He's not going to answer. He's saying going to say something about you two parroting each other, which proves something or another.

The word shill is being will be typed.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 02:50:34 PM by nexzus »
Logged
?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1384 on: July 11, 2016, 02:49:41 PM »
Quote from: nexzus on July 11, 2016, 02:48:26 PM
Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2016, 02:14:31 PM

Quote from: Empirical on July 11, 2016, 02:41:08 PM

He's not going to answers. He's saying going to say something about you two parroting each other, which proves something or another.

The word shill is being will be typed.
Good point, I'll stop arguing with him.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1385 on: July 11, 2016, 03:42:12 PM »
Quote from: nexzus on July 11, 2016, 02:48:26 PM
Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2016, 02:14:31 PM

Quote from: Empirical on July 11, 2016, 02:41:08 PM

He's not going to answer. He's saying going to say something about you two parroting each other, which proves something or another.

The word shill is being will be typed.
Well, it should be pretty obvious by now that Papa Legba has a reading disability which does not allow him to comprehend anything that contradicts him, which seems pretty ironic for a loa who "facilitates communication, speech, and understanding."
Logged
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.
?

TylerJRB

  • 261
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1386 on: July 11, 2016, 04:15:32 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 01:16:12 PM
Enough of dogshit dumb unbannable lying shills...

Back to this:

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.

Although free expansion is a closed adiabatic system and a rocket is neither. please...




« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 04:17:40 PM by TylerJRB »
Logged
*

Conker

  • 1557
  • +0/-0
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1387 on: July 11, 2016, 04:55:41 PM »
Papa, you aren't getting away from this one. Where is the reaction mass for the gas, Papa?
Logged
Quote from: John Davis on February 14, 2016, 10:57:31 AM
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1388 on: July 11, 2016, 05:14:33 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 01:47:26 PM

"Methinks thou dost protest too much"
Shakespeare.
Logged
?

EDao2

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1389 on: July 11, 2016, 09:36:34 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: EDao2 on July 11, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
Blah, lie, bullshit...

You neglect to mention that the combustion of fuel & oxidiser in your video can only be sustained by the presence of a plasma.

Do your 'shpayze-rokkitz' sustain their combustion in plasma?

No; they do not.

So right off the bat you are shown to be a Liar.

There's more than one way to sustain a combustion. The video doesn't state that it's method was the only way especially since the point of the experiment was to show that combustion can happen in a vacuum which you claimed couldn't happen. I provided a link to an explanation of rocket propulsion that mentions how chemical reactions are sustained in a rocket.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 01:47:26 PM
As you further are by your attempt to shift the onus of proof for your thermodynamics-violating claims onto me.

Summary: fuck off shill.

But not without laughing at your spelling of 'empirically' first:

Quote from: EDao2 on July 11, 2016, 01:29:08 PM
empiempirically

LOL!!!

What a puffed-up fucking fraud you are.

At this point, you must be desperate.

 I've already proven my claims so the burden of proof is now on you. You claim combustion doesn't occur in a vacuum- prove it. You claim combusted gas follows the same dynamics as non-combusted gas- prove it.

Besides the lack of proof, all you seem to do is insult people while not even fully understanding what you're arguing against. Truth be told, it's making your own argument less respectable and not even a challenge to respond to.
Logged
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1390 on: July 11, 2016, 10:03:41 PM »
Quote from: EDao2 on July 11, 2016, 09:36:34 PM
The video doesn't state that it's method was the only way

The video doesn't state much at all so is hardly 'scientific evidence'.

And as it's the only 'proof' you have for combustion in a vacuum I'd say you're pretty fucked, aren't you?

Now stop trying to violate thermodynamics & read this:

Oh - you can't; cos the quote function's disabled again!

How VERY convenient...



Logged
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 #1391 on: July 11, 2016, 10:04:48 PM »
I'll just do it like this then...

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1392 on: July 12, 2016, 12:15:25 AM »
And Papa just ignores that he accidentally admitted that a rocket is an isolated system.
Logged
?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1393 on: July 12, 2016, 12:26:23 AM »
Quote from: Conker on July 11, 2016, 04:55:41 PM
Papa, you aren't getting away from this one. Where is the reaction mass for the gas, Papa?
He isn't going to answer you, his state of mind is so fucked that he actually thinks he has already countered your point.

I feel sorry for him, his life must of gone badly. He probably gets angry at job interview and storms out because he has already proved in his mind that he is a good worker. He has isolated everyone from him, and all he has left is to argue his bullshit on an online forum.

Papa, everyone has the capacity to change. If in life you need to realize that you aren't perfect, no one is. Everyone makes mistakes, even you. You need to get help from somewhere. I hope this message gets though to the part of your mind that is still sane.
Logged
*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1394 on: July 12, 2016, 02:47:49 AM »
Joule experiment = closed container
Rocket = open container

That is a huge difference.

Papa talking rubbish as per usual.
Logged
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1395 on: July 12, 2016, 04:02:46 AM »
Note that this post is a PFZ[1]!

Lots of people have similar ideas to Papa, though they don't always express them in such colourful language!
Quote
Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas
We know, the rockets in space use Newton's 3rd law to increase their velocity and hence move. What I don't understand is how it is possible in space aka vacuum-state without air? From what I know, Joule's "Free Expansion of Gas" says that free-expansion compresses the gas and is therefore "affected" by vacuum so it can't make the rocket move as the gas will have zero press/force. Could someone please explain me how rockets do really work and the above-mentioned statement?
Actually, please have a look at this site: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632
Not: The site appears to include some conspiracy theory thingummies, but made me wonder anyway.
From: Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas

Now one clue that there might be a problem is when different physical laws seem to give different answers.
If Newton's laws of motion, Boyle's law, Charles Law and say Joule-Thomson give different answers, we are doing something wrong. In other words we are interpreting one or more laws incorrectly.

So, what is the answer here?  Joule-Thomson expansion means that an ideal gas under free expansion (eg not pushing a piston) does no work. In practice no gas is ideal and some work is done (and it can be + or -), but this is not very relevant here.

This quote might explain what the solution is
Quote
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.

This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force P.sp pushing on it.

Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work.
There is lot more in that reference, start with
Quote
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.

The rocket motor burns a mixture of fuel and oxygen to produce a very hot gas. By very hot we mean that the gas molecules have very high random velocities:


I won't go further, you can read it if you want to.


[1] PFZ = Papa Free Zone, it might be injurious to his mental health.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1396 on: July 12, 2016, 05:35:33 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
I'll just do it like this then...

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
Except that the rocket isn't physically attached to an evacuated chamber.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.
Does a Joule free expansion experiment include burning propellant?

No, I didn't think so.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.
Please post a quote from any of those sources that even mentions the word "rocket".

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
PROVES, markjo.
You seem to have a rather interesting definition of "prove".

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.
And yet the gas is able to move from the pressurized chamber to the evacuated chamber.

How can that happen if no work is done?
Logged
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 #1397 on: July 12, 2016, 10:59:26 AM »
Sophistry is not Science.

So I won't waste my one quote on your sad bullshit.

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.
Logged
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 #1398 on: July 12, 2016, 11:22:17 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 09, 2016, 09:27:53 AM
Yes, Deaf Dick; I already said you are afraid to even post a definition of N3.

Thanks for proving it with your latest mad Aspie-fest.

I'll just do it for you, eh?

Here:

Newton's Third Law

Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

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

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

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

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

Note that when ONE object accelerates a mass it does NOT by itself create motion.

A second mass, entirely separate to the first, is required to create a force-pairing with the accelerated mass & thus produce motion.

So everyone should start talking like a tool just so that nobody is ever going to suspect them of being shills? Fuck off...
Logged
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 #1399 on: July 12, 2016, 11:50:03 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 10, 2016, 01:17:23 AM
Okay retard; separate your fuel from your rocket...

Now the rocket is empty & cannot create a force.

I've wiped more intelligent life than you off my fucking shoe.

You are making less and less sense. Again, does the fact that the fuel is inside the rocket somehow "unify" it with the rocket?
Logged
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)
?

EDao2

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1400 on: July 12, 2016, 11:55:18 AM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 11, 2016, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: EDao2 on July 11, 2016, 09:36:34 PM
The video doesn't state that it's method was the only way

The video doesn't state much at all so is hardly 'scientific evidence'.

And as it's the only 'proof' you have for combustion in a vacuum I'd say you're pretty fucked, aren't you?

Whether it is scientific or not (it is), it is still evidence against your claim that combustion doesn't happen in a vacuum and still counts as proof that it does.

So, I take it you have empirical, methodically-valid (by way of the scientific method) evidence for your arguments?
Logged
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1401 on: July 12, 2016, 12:01:03 PM »
Yep; all of thermodynamics.

Which trumps that shit you posted that you don't even know is scientific or not...

You fucking retard.

Again, using Science not Sophistry:

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
?

EDao2

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1402 on: July 12, 2016, 12:14:03 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 12, 2016, 12:01:03 PM
Yep; all of thermodynamics.

Which trumps that shit you posted that you don't even know is scientific or not...

You fucking retard.

Unless you can prove how thermothermodynamics "trumps" my argument, I'm inclined to believe that you don't know or understand thermodynamics.
Logged
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1403 on: July 12, 2016, 12:18:18 PM »
So you don't even know what thermodynamics is?

Pretty fucked aren't you?

Here; thermodynamics:

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
?

EDao2

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1404 on: July 12, 2016, 12:49:26 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 12, 2016, 12:18:18 PM
So you don't even know what thermodynamics is?

Pretty fucked aren't you?

Here; thermodynamics:

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.

None of that says anything about combusted gas so it doesn't prove anything.
Logged
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1405 on: July 12, 2016, 01:13:24 PM »
So the laws of thermodynamics don't prove anything but your one shitty unattributed & unexplained youtube does?

Yeah; you're completely fucked in the head.

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1406 on: July 12, 2016, 01:32:10 PM »
Papa, you don't have to live like this.
Logged
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • +0/-0
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1407 on: July 12, 2016, 01:36:00 PM »
No-one has to do anything.

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

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

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.
Logged
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!
?

EDao2

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1408 on: July 12, 2016, 01:38:21 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 12, 2016, 01:13:24 PM
So the laws of thermodynamics don't prove anything but your one shitty unattributed & unexplained youtube does?

Yeah; you're completely fucked in the head.

You have to prove how the laws of thermodynamics apply to combusted gas and negate the forces that allow rocket propulsion. Otherwise, you are misapplying a well-developed science to contest a well-established phenomena.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45089
  • +87/-120
Re: Newtons third law
« Reply #1409 on: July 12, 2016, 01:38:34 PM »
Quote from: Papa Legba on July 12, 2016, 01:13:24 PM
A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.
Yes.

Quote from: Papa Legba on July 12, 2016, 01:13:24 PM
Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.
No.  Not even close.
Logged
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.
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 55   Go Up
« previous next »