Spherical Earth disproved for once and for all!!!

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 12:33:06 PM

I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.

In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f¹ = -f² because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.

LOL!!!

So you didn't read this:

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

And you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...

Knew you were just another talking horse shill right from the start...

Joined the forum solely to gatekeep NASA bullshit.

Do you not realise how many of your sad ilk I have come across in my time here?

You'll never get voodoo past Legba!

I read it, and it wasn't news. If applied to our jet problem, there must be conservation of momentum between the air/propulsion gases going backward and the jet going forward. I hadn't thought of that explicitly, but it makes sense.

So what is your point? "Jets fly and obey the laws of physics even if people aren't very precise in their understanding." We knew that. "Jets get pulled along by a rotating Earth and its atmosphere." We knew that, too. Apparently you don't, but they do even when you don't understand.

I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.

Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.

Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.

Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.

Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.

What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.

I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.

Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.

Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.

Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.

Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.

What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.

https://www.google.com/patents/US4126077?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent

Plus this:



Lol REtard.

That deals specifically to lessening the effects of the unbalanced forces (over correction of the person firing the gun when resisting the acceleration of the weapon) caused by the explosion. As with any explosion after the pressure wave has pushed out, the force of the relative air pressure will overcome the explosions pressure force and rush back to fill the void which is caused by the pull from the low pressure area. The person firing the weapon is applying force to the weapon to overcome it's acceleration, and in some weapons there is a mechanism inside the weapon which does the same. Thus there is a need to balance this force when the pressure wave reverses.

I don't know why we are discussing fluid dynamics now, since this effect is only an issue with single pressure wave explosions, rather than the constant pressure wave generators that are reaction mass engines.

I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.

Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.

Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.

Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.

Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.

What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.

Hmmm...It seems to me that since neither the gun nor the projectile provide the force, neither is doing the pushing. The expanding gas puts out equal force in all directions, but since the...oh, wait...Since the force is constrained by the barrel, the escape of the bullet "tells" the opposite force to go back into the gun. Makes sense.

Ok, but that's my point above. It's the air INSIDE the jet engine that's the bullet, and the thrust is the recoil. The air behind the engine just gets shoved out of the way. If I shove a person into a crowd, my shove provides the action/reaction, and not the person bouncing off the other people.

The air behind the engine IS the exhaust of the engine, a.k.a the "jet" which is accelerated by expansion as it leaves the nozzle, pushed out by the compressed air behind it. Which is not moving very quickly by comparison.

We can walk through all of the forces involved in the entire chain of actions/reactions up to that point, but primarily the thrust is from the expansion of the exhaust, which by definition is the air behind the engine.

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 02:02:10 PM

I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.

Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.

Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.

Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.

Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.

What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.

https://www.google.com/patents/US4126077?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent

Plus this:



Lol REtard.

Gun experts don't agree with you.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/302936-bullet-weight-vs-recoil.html

The recoil varies with the mass of the bullet. Your crazy-slow videos mask an important fact: The law of conservation of momentum (mv=mv) requires that the bullet move MUCH faster than the recoiling gun. Divide the mass of the gun by the mass of the bullet. What do you get? 50 (just a guess)? The bullet will shoot out of the gun 50 times faster than the gun will recoil.

And so what? The Earth is still a sphere.

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 12:33:06 PM

I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.

In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f¹ = -f² because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.

So you didn't read this:

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

Sure, what's your problem with that? Not my problem if a Voodoo Priest can't understand Newton's Third Law!

And you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...

Who cares? You don't need N3 to analyse Rocket Propulsion!

The thrust of a rocket can be modeled from a generalization of Newton's 2nd Law to include a variable mass:

But that includes sums well above the head our Voodoo Priest, so don't you bother your pretty little head over it. Those interested (that leaves you out Papa) might read a bit more in: Hyper Physics, Force and Momentum, Rocket Propulsion.

Need something pretty impressive to do this:

Knew you were just another talking horse shill right from the start...

Joined the forum solely to gatekeep NASA bullshit.

Gee, But I didn't see any mention of NASA in that Hyper Physics link!
Maybe you could read Robert H. Goddard's "A METHOD OF REACHING EXTREME ALTITUDES", Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 71. Number 2..
And do you know something Robert H. Goddard had never heard of NASA - the paper was written about 39 years before NASA!

Then Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, not NASA, developed the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation way back around 1900 - no NASA.

Gee, Mr VooDoo Priest, blaming NASA seems a big waste of time.

Do you not realise how many of your sad ilk I have come across in my time here?
You'll never get voodoo past Legba!

Yes, you've been peddling your stupid Papa Fyzix for years,

The air behind the engine IS the exhaust of the engine, a.k.a the "jet" which is accelerated by expansion as it leaves the nozzle, pushed out by the compressed air behind it. Which is not moving very quickly by comparison.

We can walk through all of the forces involved in the entire chain of actions/reactions up to that point, but primarily the thrust is from the expansion of the exhaust, which by definition is the air behind the engine.

Not sure if this video agrees with you or me.



I'm thinking about other kinds of jets, such as blowing. That force is the same no matter what is in front of me. Put my hand two inches from my mouth and the force pushing my head backward is the same. The action/reaction happens before the air gets to my hand. Once the air exits, its energy is directed much more randomly and cannot push on the engine. It's only inside the back of the engine where it can push.

Wow you really do hate science, don't you?

That's because you are these people:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

So smart, science is unnecessary!

Funny how the men who actually design jets and rockets all acknowledge they push on the air through which they move, yet brainwashed minions like you all claim the opposite...

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

Anyone sane would think you're just scumbags doing the dirty work they're far too honest and honourable to do themselves...

The filth who run this forum will doubtless say different though...

Because blackmailed paedos.

If your argument that the force comes from within the engine were true than there would be no need to exhaust the mass straight back. You could simply redirect the exhaust in any direction but the applied force would still be forward for the engine. This is not the case. It is the jet of exhaust that produces the force.

[youtube][/youtube]

Which creates a constant, and directed pressure wave from the acceleration of the mass.

[youtube][/youtube]

This is why in order to calculate the net force of a jet engine you use the acceleration of the jet/exhaust mass.

F_net = m_air(V_j-V)

Where m_air = Mass
Where V_j = Speed of the exhaust plume
Where V = Airspeed of the engine.

So the engine produces 0 net thrust if the craft is traveling at the same speed as the mass of exhaust.

Gross thrust at the nozzle is calculated as (m_air+m_f)V_j where m_f = fuel

If your argument that the force comes from within the engine were true than there would be no need to exhaust the mass straight back. You could simply redirect the exhaust in any direction but the applied force would still be forward for the engine. This is not the case. It is the jet of exhaust that produces the force.

[youtube][/youtube]

Which creates a constant, and directed pressure wave from the acceleration of the mass.

[youtube][/youtube]

This is why in order to calculate the net force of a jet engine you use the acceleration of the jet/exhaust mass.

F_net = m_air(V_j-V)

Where m_air = Mass
Where V_j = Speed of the exhaust plume
Where V = Airspeed of the engine.

So the engine produces 0 net thrust if the craft is traveling at the same speed as the mass of exhaust.

Gross thrust at the nozzle is calculated as (m_air+m_f)V_j where m_f = fuel

I think that you are missing my point. The engine pushes on the air so the air pushes on the engine, right? That's the Third Law in the situation. The air can't push on the engine from outside the engine. Only air in contact with the engine can push on it. The reaction force must be inside the engine.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33068/on-which-points-in-a-jet-engine-does-the-reaction-force-act

I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?

If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.

You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.

No. We have proven it by providing them.
You have proven it by providing sources which agree with us.

Instead you are asserting we can't without actually proving we can't.
You are yet to identify a single thing wrong with them.

Grow up or fuck off.

Congratulations!
Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.

Nope. Not finally. It was done long ago.

If your argument that the force comes from within the engine were true than there would be no need to exhaust the mass straight back. You could simply redirect the exhaust in any direction but the applied force would still be forward for the engine. This is not the case. It is the jet of exhaust that produces the force.

That would all depend upon how it is redirected.

If the plane itself is redirecting it, then that can be considered in 2 ways, either as part of the engine, or as an additional force on the plane.

Funny how the men who actually design jets and rockets all acknowledge they push on the air through which they move, yet brainwashed minions like you all claim the opposite...

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

That information is from Source: Encyclopedia Britannica. Are you now claiming that Source: Encyclopedia Britannica are 
Also, the English version of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Jet engine contains:

Jet engine
The propulsor
The gas horsepower generated by the prime mover in the form of hot, high-pressure gas is used to drive the propulsor, enabling it to generate thrust for propelling or lifting the aircraft. The principle on which such a thrust is produced is based on Newton’s second law of motion^[1]. This law generalizes the observation that the force (F) required to accelerate a discrete mass (m) is proportional to the product of that mass and the acceleration (a). In effect,



where the mass is taken as the weight (w) of the object divided by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at the place where the object was weighed. In the case of a jet engine, one is generally dealing with the acceleration of a steady stream of air rather than with a discrete mass. Here, the equivalent statement of the second law of motion is that the force (F) required to increase the velocity of a stream of fluid is proportional to the product of the rate of mass flow (M) of the stream and the change in velocity of the stream,



where the inlet velocity (V₀) relative to the engine is taken to be the flight velocity and the discharge velocity (Vj) is the exhaust or jet velocity relative to the engine. W is the rate of weight flow of working fluid (i.e., air or products of combustion) divided by the acceleration of gravity in the place where the weight flow is measured. The relatively small effect of the weight flow of fuel in creating a difference between the weight flow of the inlet and exhaust streams is intentionally disregarded.

One thereby infers that the components of a propulsor must exert a force F on the stream of air flowing through the propulsor if this device accelerates the airstream from the flight velocity V₀ to the discharge velocity V_j. The reaction to that force F is ultimately transmitted by the mounts of the propulsor to the aircraft as propulsive thrust.

From: Encyclopedia Britannica, Jet engine

Funny that they forgot to mention the outside air pressure,  surely that would be highly important in your Papa Fyzix!

Since you are so keen on Britannica you might also read: Encyclopedia Britannica, Rocket.

The quantity ṁv_e is the propulsive force, or thrust, produced on the rocket by exhausting the propellant,

And they forgot to mention the outside air pressure again!  How remiss of them! 

[1] Oops,  they forgot Newton's Third Law  Papa you'd better go and sort out Britannica with your Papa Fyzix!

I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?

If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.

Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):

https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 05:21:06 PM

I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?

If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.

Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):

https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false

Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.

The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.

Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.

I grow weary of this debate. What does the inner workings of a jet engine have to do with the fact that a plane can fly inside a spinning sphere? Nothing.

I grow weary of this debate. What does the inner workings of a jet engine have to do with the fact that a plane can fly inside a spinning sphere? Nothing.

Our host imagines that if we don't perfectly understand aeronautical engineering, then we aren't smart enough to understand the shape of the Earth. Not very logical (typical FE).

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 25, 2017, 05:59:21 PM

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 05:21:06 PM

I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?

If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.

Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):

https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false

Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.

The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.

Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.

Fair enough, but if someone says "how does a car work?" we don't say "burning gas makes your wheels push on the street."

I'm only pressing this because our host is being such a know-it-all jerk. I like learning and understanding and (maybe) teaching in this site, but our host has made this a contest of "whoever knows physics knows the shape of the Earth," and then repeats some bad physics. Hard to let that go! I wish he would explain what this has to do with the shape of the Earth. Until then, we have his "I know the shape of the Earth because I know (incorrectly) that jets gain thrust by pushing on the air behind them." By his standard, he is wrong about he shape of the Earth because I have shown him to be wrong about jet thrust. Makes no sense to me, but it was his idea of a contest--and he lost.

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 06:20:20 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 25, 2017, 05:59:21 PM

Quote from: Amnzero on August 25, 2017, 05:21:06 PM

I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?

If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.

Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):

https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false

Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.

The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.

Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.

Fair enough, but if someone says "how does a car work?" we don't say "burning gas makes your wheels push on the street."

I'm only pressing this because our host is being such a know-it-all jerk. I like learning and understanding and (maybe) teaching in this site, but our host has made this a contest of "whoever knows physics knows the shape of the Earth," and then repeats some bad physics. Hard to let that go! I wish he would explain what this has to do with the shape of the Earth. Until then, we have his "I know the shape of the Earth because I know (incorrectly) that jets gain thrust by pushing on the air behind them." By his standard, he is wrong about he shape of the Earth because I have shown him to be wrong about jet thrust. Makes no sense to me, but it was his idea of a contest--and he lost.

Understandable.

I think we have sufficiently demonstrated that Newtonian laws work in any event. The point of my original posting was to show the normalizing force applied by the rotation of the earth on a FBD, which is enough to refute the claim made by the OP.

 Lol you lost all credibility when you quoted N2 and implied it represented N3, REtard...

It's the only way you can get your silly rokkitz to work in shpayze, by stating N3 as f1=-f1...

Total fail on the simplest of levels.

This guy gets it right:

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.
The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.
Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.

Except you consider the force on each part individually.
If you had something get released from the engine which vectored the thrust up and down (and was not attached to the plane), that would not significantly affect the thrust of the plane. If it did it smoothly/ideally, it wouldn't effect the thrust of the plane, the force on the plane would remain the same.

It's the only way you can get your silly rokkitz to work in shpayze, by stating N3 as f1=-f1...

You mean to get the real, functional rockets to work in space, is by having Newton's standard third law of motion?
The gases expand and are pressurised. This exerts a force on the rocket and an equal and opposite force is exerted on the gas causing it to leave the rocket.

No magic required.

Total bullshit.

Again, here is some real science in response to your just saying mad illogical shit and hoping the reader is too dumb to notice:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

And here is what you are again:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

So smart, science is unnecessary!

Total bullshit.

Again, here is some real science in response to your just saying mad illogical shit and hoping the reader is too dumb to notice:

Are you capable of making a rational argument yourself rather than linking to a bunch of crap.

I know you think you are so retarded you don't need science, but I don't give a shit. If you want to spout bullshit as you have been doing, you need to back it up, not just with BS links that refute you.

Total bullshit.

Again, here is some real science in response to your just saying mad illogical shit and hoping the reader is too dumb to notice:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

And here is what you are again:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

So smart, science is unnecessary!

Electromagnetism can apply forces to matter, so I don't what that link about the misconception around N3 is saying.

I stated clearly and it is obviously the case that you don't understand N3 and you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed N3 is f1 = -f1. You have only claimed that I did through some delusional conclusion.

Again all of Newton's laws always apply to all bodies, so I don't know how explaining the N2 equation in this argument is somehow contradictory to it...

Red Herring arguments at best.

Lol you lost all credibility when you quoted N2 and implied it represented N3, REtard...

I don't know you are raving at here, but in case I'm the victim, just where did I "quote N2 and imply it represented N3".

Here is the relevant bit of my post:

Quote from: Papa Legba

And you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...

Who cares? You don't need N3 to analyse Rocket Propulsion!

Quote

The thrust of a rocket can be modeled from a generalization of Newton's 2nd Law to include a variable mass:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gee, But I didn't see any mention of NASA in that Hyper Physics link!
Maybe you could read Robert H. Goddard's "A METHOD OF REACHING EXTREME ALTITUDES", Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 71. Number 2..
And do you know something Robert H. Goddard had never heard of NASA - the paper was written about 39 years before NASA!
Then Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, not NASA, developed the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation way back around 1900 - no NASA.
Gee, Mr VooDoo Priest, blaming NASA seems a big waste of time.

So, I said "You don't need N3 to analyse Rocket Propulsion!" and
gave a quote that contained "The thrust of a rocket can be modeled from a generalization of .Newton's 2nd Law ".

The reference was simply using "Conservation of Momentum I did not imply N3, any implication is in: Hyper Physics, Force and Momentum, Rocket Propulsion and I'd believe them before you any day.
And, Newton notwithstanding, I would rank the conservation laws as the more fundamental.

Conservation laws as fundamental laws of nature
Conservation laws are fundamental to our understanding of the physical world, in that they describe which processes can or cannot occur in nature. For example, the conservation law of energy states that the total quantity of energy in an isolated system does not change, though it may change form. In general, the total quantity of the property governed by that law remains unchanged during physical processes. With respect to classical physics, conservation laws include conservation of energy, mass (or matter), linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge.

So, CoM is quote valid, and it is the usual analysis method for rocket thrust.
And it's so hilarious that everybody from Robert Goddard on seems to get essentially the same result - except the poor, poor Voodoo Priest.

Now, in case you hadn't noticed, the thread topic is "Spherical Earth disproved for once and for all!!!" so make.up your own thread about rockets, preferably in Complete Nonsense, like you are.

Lol you are all completely fucking mental...

Just so far gone it is impossible to discuss the simplest things with you.

Are you not embarrassed by your behaviour?

Of course the thrust of a rocket can be modelled by N2...

But, as the man I quote goes on to say, unless that thrust creates a force pairing with an outside body motion cannot be produced.

This is Newton's third law, and nothing can move without it, you mad bastard.

Read again:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

"All aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself"...

ALL of them, REtard.

And yes, this does include rocket engines:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft

Ergo: without the atmosphere, no aircraft propulsion device can create motion.

It could not be simpler...

Yet you will never, ever, stop bullshitting on the subject, will you?

Because you are weaponised idiots, set loose on the internet, to ruin it for everyone on behalf of your oligarchal masters...

You are these people:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

So smart, science is unnecessary!