 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Every action has equal & opposite reaction?
Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. Will it be true incase of astronomical Objects? Two balls collide then they go away in opposite direction. ------------------------------------------------------ 1. A star Collides with a Black hole? Will the Black hole eat that star or the Black Hole will get thrown away? Do black hole remain stationary or they revolve arround in sky? A ball Collides with a Wall it bounce back. -------------------------------------------------------------- A star at Edge of Universe gets Collide with the Wall of Universe. That is it strikes the boundry of Universe. Will it bounce Back? If I consider our Universe as a Ballon with stars as its air. And this Ballon is expanding by someone filling inside air of stars. What will happen when the Universe Brust. Will we see a bigger Universe? Bye Sanny > Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1. A star Collides with a Black hole? Will the Black hole eat that > star or the Black Hole will get thrown away? Depends on the size and density of both. :) > Do black hole remain stationary or they revolve arround in sky? They are at the center of galaxies mostly and are moving with the entire galaxy in it's orbit around the universe. > A ball Collides with a Wall it bounce back. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > A star at Edge of Universe gets Collide with the Wall of Universe. > That is it strikes the boundry of Universe. Will it bounce Back? What boundary? What we see is not a physical boundary or wall. It is simply the limited distance light can travel. > If I consider our Universe as a Ballon with stars as its air. And this > Ballon is expanding by someone filling inside air of stars. What will > happen when the Universe Brust. Will we see a bigger Universe? It has no surface to burst. outside of expanding space is just more space or it could not expand at all. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman I can easily prove a rocket moves because it is being 'pushed" Oh ya Bert > Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. Wrong. When one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction upon the first. Paul Cardinale >> Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > > Wrong. When one object exerts a force on a second object, the second > object exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction upon > the first. hmm? That is the same thing with extra wording. C,mon Paul, stop that. Making simple stuff complex is not how people learn it better. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 26, 11:28 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote: > > Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul Cardinale If you push on anything, it pushes back on you. That's why if you lean against the wall, you don't just fall through it. The wall pushes back on you as hard as you push on it, and you and the wall stay in place. If you throw something, you put more force behind it than just leaning on it, so it pushes back with more force. This is hard to observe, because usually, if you throw something away from you, the friction between you and the floor makes resistance to keep you in place. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/2-every-action-has- an-equal-and-opposite.html > Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics was in place. This law does not hold in EM. Pete Dear Pmb: > > Every action has equal & opposite reaction? > > as per Newton Laws. > > Not always. Newton stated that before the theory > of electrodynamics was in place. This law does > not hold in EM. Got an example? A magnet pulls on a paperclip, the paperclip pulls on the magnet too. Light is transmitted between an emitter and receiver, the net interaction maintains "conservation of momentum"... David A. Smith >> Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > > Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics > was in place. This law does not hold in EM. It does to. If you use it correctly, meaning you treat each and every electron seperately. but of course. that is crazy math, so you use the quicker methods. But that does not prove Newton was wrong at all. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > > Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics was in > place. This law does not hold in EM. > > Pete Pete... I'm having trouble with your statement. Does not conservation of momentum apply in both emission abs absorption of photons, virtual or otherwise? Pmb says... >> Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > >Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics was in >place. This law does not hold in EM. What do you mean? The modern way to interpret "equal and opposite reactions" is in terms of conservation of momentum, and that certainly holds in E&M: There is momentum in particles, and also in the electromagnetic field. The sum of the two is a constant. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY > > Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. > > Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics was in > place. This law does not hold in EM. > > Pete ------------ it holds everywhere !! *provided you know all the details to scratch !! (in the EM case you dont really know anything to scratch !!) iow if some of your theory contradict it it is the best clue or profe - you dont know reality good enough !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- ATB Y.Porat ---------------- > > "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ------------ > it holds everywhere !! That is wrong. The fact that Newton's 3rd law doesn't work in all circumstances is a well known fact. Most basic EM texts expain this. Merely consider two charged particles which are traveling along paths which are at right angles with respect to the observer. It is readily seen by a simple calculation that the forces are not equal and opposite. > *provided you know all the details to scratch > !! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it is the best clue or profe - you dont know > reality good enough !! I see no reason for you to start insulting me. In actuality it is you who doesn't know the physics. Stop insutling and start listenting. > > > "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Stop insutling and start listenting. ------------- while i said 'you dont know' it was not personally ** ** against you **it was against all of us !!** my idea was that we (repeat we (:-)) dont know to scratch about all the particles and sub sub particle that took place in the scene !! fo r instance you probably think that energy has no mass do you ?? or you can 'see' all the sub particles forces and energies that were involved soif you think you know about all the picture it is you who has to learn that we still dont know everything so i hope you agree with me at last about that last recognition ps acording to the best i could gather during my few years of living all forces are done by collision of some sub particles 9that includes electromagnetism)!! while those still unknown basic particles collide in a perfectly elastic collision while in anelestic colission as such action must be exactly as reaction or else .... guess what there would not be ,for instance, the law of conservation of energy or conservation of MOMENTUM .....!! Newtons third law is the base of the above !!! (not to mention that in 'Statics and dynamics it i s **more** than bread and butter .).. ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- ATB Y.Porat >> > > "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > ** > ** against you Ah. Okay. Sorry if I jumped the gun then. It seemed as if you were insulting me. > **it was against all of us !!** > my idea was that we (repeat we (:-)) > dont know to scratch about all the particles and sub sub particle > that took place in the scene !! But we are able to observe the physical world and make statements about it. We can state what the forces are on charged particles and we can state what directions they are moving in etc. And this applies not only to charged particles but also to macrosopic charged bodies too. One can construct two charged macroscopic bodies and set them into relative motion and then observe the forces which act on them. They will not be equal and opposite. >.. fo r instance you probably think that energy has no mass do you ?? Energy is not a thing which can have a property like mass. Energy is a property itself. So no. I don't think that energy has mass. I think that quantities which have energy may also have mass. A photon *has* energy and by virtue of that energy also has (relativistic) mass. > or you can 'see' all the sub particles forces and energies that > were involved > soif you think you know about all the picture > it is you who has to learn that we still dont know everything Nobody said that I know everything. Good Lord that will never be true. Nobody knows everything and never will. Who said otherwise???? > so i hope you agree with me at last about that last recognition > ps [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (not to mention that in 'Statics and dynamics > it i s **more** than bread and butter .).. When two charged particles interact and don't obey Newton's third law it is because there are photons which take up the momentum that seems to be missing. However this does not validate Newton's 3rd law. That law refers to equal and opposite forces and they are not so. But this does not present a problem with the conservation of momentum. Pete > >> > > "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > We can state what the forces are on charged particles and we can state what > directions they are moving in etc ----------------- any collission phenomenon can be involving charged and **uncharged particles** that you dont know about them ------- . And this applies not only to charged > particles but also to macrosopic charged bodies too. One can construct two > charged macroscopic bodies and set them into relative motion and then > observe the forces which act on them. They will not be equal and opposite. ----- again aprticularly if you talk about macroscopic objects you can understand it better : if you collide two tennis balles and the collision is not 100 percent elastic your observation is not complete because some of the energy was turned to heat and that changes the 'elastic' expected results but it is not Newtons fault it is the 'complexity of the problem s .fault " (:-) --------- > >.. fo r instance you probably think that energy has no mass do you ?? > > Energy is not a thing which can have a property like mass. so there is were our disagreement starts !!!! the fact that you and me dont know all cases of mass does not mean that you know it !! (to scratch !!) self delusion is worse and more harmful than self declared ignorance ----------- ------- Energy is a > property itself. So no. I don't think that energy has mass. imho very bad that you still didnt get it i actually even proved it by looking into the dimensions of h looking into E=mc^2 etc --------- I think that > quantities which have energy may also have mass. A photon *has* energy and > by virtue of that energy also has (relativistic) mass. good we are doing some advance you had no choice but to invent a new kind of mass relativistic one !!! (:-) but who gave you the permission to INVENT new kinds of mass ?? do you think that anyone can invent new kinds of mass just to adjust his new theory ?? 2 please remember what i told you : **there is jsut one kind of mass!!** if you **invent** a new kind it is the burdain of prove on you btw i have already explained an showed many times that that it is not mass that is growing but the needed force or energy needed to add velocity that is growing and i am not going to repeat it endlessly -------- > > or you can 'see' all the sub particles forces and energies that > > were involved [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > because there are photons which take up the momentum that seems to be > missing. However this does not validate Newton's 3rd law. ----------- no Sir if you invalidate the third law it is the burden of prove ON YOU !! you cant just declare invalidity of a basic law without prove and just by words !! and you have to prove that you took into your account ALL THE INVOLVED FACTORS !! ---------- That law refers to > equal and opposite forces and they are not so. But this does not present a > problem with the conservation of momentum. why because you just say so ?? do you want to say that two colliding bodies no matter if charged or not DO NOT OBEY THE CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM LAW ??!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------ > Pete A rocket only has a push to have it go forward. No opposite direction needed. Go figure Bert > A rocket only has a push to have it go forward. No opposite direction > needed. Go figure Bert Actually, whether it's up in the air or out in space, Bert, the "thrust" that's needed to "push" a jet or a rocket is provided by a reaction engine that forces a fast moving jet of fluid in the rearward direction. This is in direct accordance with Isaac Newton's laws of motion. The jet of fluid discharged in the "opposite" direction makes the jet or rocket move in the forward direction. Also, small directional thrusters use this same law of motion in space to precisely move a spacecraft in several different directions. They're used for such things as docking with other spacecraft, orientation of the vehicle for proper reentry into the atmosphere, and so on. This is what's happening when you hear an astronaut ready the ship for a "two-second burn". happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius I see it the way it is. Pressure on one side is pushing the cylinder,and on the opposite side no pressure. Let it be in the Earth's atmosphere or the vacuum of space does not matter. Think what is happening when you were a kid and released the end of a toy balloon. The pressure push was on the end that was closed. < pressure > no pressure That is reality Newton was not all wrong on this but I'm 100% right For I'm calling it the way it is Bert > Painius I see it the way it is. Pressure on one side is pushing the > cylinder,and on the opposite side no pressure. Let it be in the Earth's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is reality Newton was not all wrong on this but I'm 100% right > For I'm calling it the way it is Bert Still not sure what you're saying, Bert. When i was a kid and released a toy balloon, the air from the inside of the balloon rushed out the open end and pushed the balloon all around in a chaotic motion. And it's still the same Newtonian law of motion at work: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > "G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglaz...@webtv.net> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the balloon rushed out the open end and pushed the > balloon all around in a chaotic motion. Bert is picturing the reactive force as being against the closed end of the balloon, thus pushing the balloon in that direction. But the *center of reactive pressure* is actually at the small point of the nozzle aperture. Thus the balloon is 'pushed around chaotically' instead of in a straight line. If you remember Goddard's first rockets, he mounted the engine on `top` of the whole assembly to achieve stability by the pendulum effect. oc Controlling the opening controls the pressure. Greater pressure faster the rocket goes. Release the pressure all at once and there is no push. Pressure goes to less or no pressure. Like heat goes to cold. Well Painius & oc think about it my way instead of Newtons,and it fits too Bert Painius Not arguing the air went out the open end,but their was pressure on the closed end and this pressure is the push force that pushed the balloon forward. The gas going out need not push against anything. Try to picture inside the action taking place Bert > Painius Not arguing the air went out the open end,but their was pressure > on the closed end and this pressure is the push force that pushed the > balloon forward. The gas going out need not push against anything. > Try to picture inside the action taking place Bert Okay, i get it. You're saying that there is a pressure difference between the inside of the balloon and the outside of the balloon at the closed end. And that it is this pressure on the inside at the closed end that pushes the balloon. And this pressure, that is there inside the inflated balloon all the time and pushing outward on the inside walls of the balloon, is the force that pushes the balloon when the little nozzle is opened at the opposite end from the closed end. Have i got it right so far, Bert? Now, this pressure on the inside walls of the balloon, BEFORE the open end is opened, is pretty much the same amount of pressure on every square inch of the inside of the balloon, correct? So if the pressure is pretty much equal at all points on the inside walls of the balloon, then what exactly happens AT THE VERY MOMENT that the balloon is opened? If it is the pressure on the inside walls of the balloon that drives the balloon forward and away from the open end, then why doesn't the balloon go left or right when the open end is opened? Why does the balloon aways go in the direction that is opposite from the opened end? I guess what i'm asking you, Bert, is how does the pressure, that is equal at all points on the inside of the balloon just before opening the nozzle, how and why does that pressure all move instantly to the closed end and then push JUST at the inside wall at the closed end? Why doesn't the pressure continue to push with equal force on every square inch of the inside walls of the balloon? Don't you find it suspicious that this pressure that you say is at the closed end of the balloon just happens to instantly concentrate itself at the end of the balloon that is precisely "opposite" from the open end of the balloon? And what happens to the pressure, which I assume is supposed to concentrate in the nose of a jet plane, when the pilot turns off the jet engine? Where does it go? And why does it go? And how did the pressure get there to the nose of the airplane in the first place? There has to be a *source* for the force, Bert. What is the source of the forward pressure? What *causes* it? Have you fired a gun? Have you felt the recoil or "kick" just as the bullet leaves the gun? How do you explain this shoulder-wrenching "kick"? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius You ended with the closed end of he gun. Here you are given me the visa versa. Balloon filed with air of 35psi with no opening stays put. It has equal pressure on every square inch inside. Its rubber sides have blown up and it is a ball because its inside pressure is greater than the 14,5 pressure outside. Poke a pin in it and it will explode(I love to do that ) Make he right size hole and the pressure on the inside rubber will push against that 14.5 because it is about 21 psi stronger. Its the end that still has the pressure but yes it is losing it.fast Its not the open nozzle that is doing any pushing. Well Painius lets put it down as thinking in the right direction,and that is the push direction(had to get that in) Newton still had it kind of right Go figure Bert > Painius You ended with the closed end of he gun. Here you are given me > the visa versa. Balloon filed with air of 35psi with no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > direction,and that is the push direction(had to get that in) Newton > still had it kind of right Go figure Bert Newton had this *very* kind of right, Bert. Phoenix couldn't have made it to Mars without the principle of motion behind Newton's third law. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Here's a brain teaser for you. Should be right up Zinni's alley. :-) http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/jet.htm oc Much thanks for that site. It fits well with my push thinking. I did think of Feynman's sprinkler experiment he performed in the cellar of MIT before going to post my single reaction "Push theory" Feynman was lucky he was not cut by that exploding glass cooler. Best to keep in mind when I put my experiment together to show inertia reaction has a time lapse I used water. Water transmits energy almost instantaneously being that it is none compressible bert Painius Phoenix could get to Mars with my thinking of inner push. If using jet of gas out it begs the question. What is the outward gas (rear) pushing against to move rocket (forward) When I jump up I push against the ground. If I release a coiled up spring with its ends open it goes no where. One end has to be against something to keep it from uncoiling so all the spring push is transmitted to the other end(the moving end) Painius Reality is I came up with inner pressure push with my tongue in my cheek,but made such I good argument that I;'m laughing. Still its best we think things out in every direction,and that is what "equal,but opposite reactions are all about" Go figure Bert > If > using jet of gas out it begs the question. What is the outward gas > (rear) pushing against to move rocket (forward)? The gas, being under acceleration, is 'pushing against' its own resting inertia. The 'push' occurs only in the region of the gas stream that is under acceleration, peaking at the narrowest point of the rocket nozzle. No acceleration = no 'push'. > When I jump up I > push against the ground. Now try jumping up without accelerating, and see how far off the ground you get. > If I release a coiled up spring with its > ends open it goes no where. One end has to be against something to keep > it from uncoiling so all the spring push is transmitted to the other > end (the moving end). Did you ever play with a Slinky and watch the reflected compression- rarefaction waves running back and forth? Those are also inertial- accelerational waves. > that is what "equal, but opposite reactions are all about" But without an acceleration/(deceleration) component there is no 'reaction'. oc You say the gas is pushing against itself(own inertia) I relate that by kicking myself in the a.s to accelerate me forward. Or picking myself up with my suspenders. Jumping up I start decelerating just as soon as my knees straighten out. At my age 1.5 feet is as high a jump I can achieve. Cone shape of a rockets back compression wall is its best shape.(Curved) Keeping the pressure steady at the compression inner wall of rocket gives it time to accelerate. Greater heat greater compression,and that is why aluminum powder is spayed into the combustion chamber. Bert PS I will bring in the great push up force of bouyancy to help my argument(If need be) The ends of a compressed spring move over a distance when released, even if the center doesn't. In the case of a rocket, one end is moving hella faster than the other. ( “ hella ” means “ very ” ) > oc You say the gas is pushing against itself(own inertia) I relate that > by kicking myself in the a.s to accelerate me forward. Or picking myself > up with my suspenders. Try this: Put yourself and a small pile of bricks in an old Radio Flyer wagon, and the wagon on a level surface. Now start throwing bricks off the back of the wagon, as hard as you can, as level as you can. What do you think will happen to you and the wagon? > Jumping up I start decelerating just as soon as > my knees straighten out. At my age 1.5 feet is as high a jump I can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > combustion chamber. Bert PS I will bring in the great push up force of > bouyancy to help my argument(If need be) How about you just realize that as you make the little atoms accelerate out of the back end of the rocket, it makes the rocket accelerate in the other direction? SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. Timber I relate that throwing bricks to pushing the wagon with my feet,as I did. It is push. The opposite action to push is pull. Hot gasses create pressure in the walls of a rocket and the front closed wall is under pressure,and the pressure of gas on that wall makes it move forward into a far less pressure area Should outside the rocket be a vacuum ,than that is best for two reasons Bert > Timber I relate that throwing bricks to pushing the wagon with my > feet,as I did. It is push. The opposite action to push is pull. Hot > gasses create pressure in the walls of a rocket and the front closed > wall is under pressure,and the pressure of gas on that wall makes it > move forward into a far less pressure area Should outside the rocket be > a vacuum ,than that is best for two reasons Bert Bert, you're still not getting it, my friend... It won't matter how much pressure you push with your feet on the inside wall of the wagon, and it won't matter how long you push with your feet. You can sit there all friggin' day and night pushing your feet up against that wagon wall, and i guarantee you won't move one iota of a centimeter until you throw out that brick! It's the throwing of the brick that moves the wagon, NOT your feet pushing against the inside wall. Newton didn't know gravity very well, but he had motion down... right down to the ground. Try this... push as hard as you can with your feet, and then throw the brick in the *forward* direction, throw it in the same direction you're pushing hard with your feet. No matter how hard you push with your feet, by throwing the brick forward, this will cause you and the wagon to move BACKWARD! Every time. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > > Timber I relate that throwing bricks to pushing the wagon with my > > feet,as I did. It is push. The opposite action to push is pull. Hot [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Newton didn't know gravity very well, Oh, he knew it well enough for most purposes. > but he had motion > down... right down to the ground. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Every time. And you can even calculate how fast your Radio Flyer will move, if you know how fast you can throw a brick, how heavy a brick is, and how heavy you and the wagon are. That's how well Newton knew motion. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. Timber I do not argue throwing a heavy brick will move an object that is resting on little friction. I'm stating again its the pressure on the closed wall that is "PUSHING" doing the work. It will not let the gas out because its the end that's closed. Open the front closed end with the same size opening as the back end and equal pressure means "I'm right" Go figure Bert > Timber I do not argue throwing a heavy brick will move an object that > is resting on little friction. I'm stating again its the pressure on > the closed wall that is "PUSHING" doing the work. It will not let the > gas out because its the end that's closed. Open the front closed end > with the same size opening as the back end and equal pressure means "I'm > right" Go figure Bert Well, okay. Part of the problem is that since you're using nonstandard terminology to express things that in the end don't make a difference in the analysis, it's hard to figure out what you are saying. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. Timber If I did not make myself clear I apologize. If I'm talking over you head I will still apologise for it is never my intent to hurt a persons feelings. I can't help it if you have a low IQ,or are a dim wit. I have taken a very unpopular view I know that. Still Im running pretty good with it. It is in reality an exercise in thinking,and having the great minds of Painius and oc posting and being to kind to call me a idiot as I frustrate them shows how nice they are,two of my dearest virtual friends always Bert > Timber If I did not make myself clear I apologize. If I'm talking over > you head I will still apologise for it is never my intent to hurt a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > idiot as I frustrate them shows how nice they are,two of my dearest > virtual friends always Bert You playin' wif me, Bert? I'll ne'er speaka to you again! (Till nexx time) Is there such a thing as ... "time"? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius I'm as serious as I can get after two 6 packs of Bud light. The 4th is one of my best holidays,and best excuse for drinking to much. Glad the word "push" is being used a lot because that is the real reason the rocket's engine is doing its job of pushing the rocket forward. Playing a mind game with you oc and Double-A like all games are fun when played fairly on a level playing field. Did any one figure out what can lift itself of the ground with only an internal force? No outside push or pull needed I think as I got older I got where I like to argue,and really don't care which side I'm on You see Painius Newtons thoughts can be challenged. Einstein knew that Best to keep in mind Newton like particles better than waves,and yet Bert > Did any one figure out what > can lift itself of the ground with only an internal force? No outside > push or pull needed. Inertial propulsion or reactionless drives are in the same realm as 'perpetual motion' machines. No matter how cleverly crafted or portrayed, the concept ends up violating conservation of momentum. F'reggzample, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_propulsion_engine > You see > Newtons thoughts can be challenged. Einstein knew that Best to keep > in mind Newton liked particles better than waves, and yet... (hic). >> Did any one figure out what >> can lift itself of the ground with only an internal force? No outside [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > F'reggzample, see - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_propulsion_engine Mebbe Bert's talkin' about... plants? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net OK guys best I tell you what can do this,for I have to do what Cactus Saul so rightly pointed out(short posts are best) and I have been doing the 4th on boiler makers. Mother nature made Mexican jumping beans(I bought them as a kid. They were fun to watch. Inside was a tiny white worm. It was a clever worm and never heard about Newton's laws. In the darkness of this inclosed shell it knew which side was up.and its put energy on that up side and took the shell with him. Best not to argue with mother nature Bert Yeah Bert, but suspend the Mexican jumping bean in free space. How's it going to "jump"? :-) Reactionless drives have to be able to work in free space, out of any contact with air, water, or the ground. So far, none have ever panned out because there was always sumpin' for them to react 'against', like the jumping bean sittin' on the ground. oc I knew you would hit me with that floating in space bit(and right you are) Still it was amazing to see a round shell just jump up of the ground. Finding that tiny worm inside to accomplish this feat was just as amazing. I wonder if a magnetic coil shooting a heavy projectile inside a rocket could do this ?? It has lots of inertia,and that forward pressure wall would be hit with a great force. It could be a greater force than the force in the opposite direction. Might be worth a try. Its easy to do. You could use the Bendix in a car starter. You could go big and use a maglev train. oc maybe they will take some Mexican jumping beans on the next shuttle,and see if it moves in one direction. I think after 40 years of just going round and round this could be NASA most profound experiment. Bert > I wonder if a magnetic coil shooting a heavy projectile > inside a rocket could do this ?? It has lots of inertia,and that > forward pressure wall would be hit with a great force. It could be a > greater force than the force in the opposite direction. No t'wouldn't, Bert. Granted, it would hit the forward bulkhead with higher `peak impact` pressure. But the total energy dissipated would still equal the energy of launching the projectile. Result: zero forward momentum imparted to the spaceship. The idea is reminiscent of the enigmatic 'Dean Drive' which was highly touted for a while in back in the 50s but then faded to obscurity. oc as I said I can keep this going for two weeks Ok here is the next scenario Im sitting on a swing,and I can throw my feet out bring them back and I will swing higher and higher. No outside energy needed. Bert > oc as I said I can keep this going for two weeks Ok here is the next > scenario Im sitting on a swing,and I can throw my feet out bring them > back and I will swing higher and higher. No outside energy needed. No cigar. :-) Sure, when you throw yer feet forward and back, you're applying a varying force vector to the fulcrum of the swing, and by synchronyzing it with the swing's natural period, you set the swing "oscillating" higher and higher. The force-vectoring system is connected to 'something' (the fulcrum) against which it reacts. >> oc as I said I can keep this going for two weeks Ok here is the next >> scenario Im sitting on a swing,and I can throw my feet out bring them [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "oscillating" higher and higher. The force-vectoring system is > connected to 'something' (the fulcrum) against which it reacts. And... "outside energy" is always needed when the swinger is young and hasn't mastered the motions of swinging yet. A little push on the bum gets them going, and then i mosey around front while telling the child to straighten the legs when going forward. When i arrive around front, if the child has swung the feet forward, i reward him or her with a jerk of my head back, as if the child kicked me. Now, the kid's not stupid and knows he or she didn't *really* kick me. And yet it's great for getting high-grade giggles and to help them easily remember to keep their legs straight on the forward shwing! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > OK guys best I tell you what can do this,for I have to do what Cactus > Saul so rightly pointed out(short posts are best) and I have been doing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > energy on that up side and took the shell with him. Best not to argue > with mother nature Bert No argument there, Bert... http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug97.htm "Probably the most interesting thing about Mexican jumping bean shrubs are the remarkable 'beans' that jerk and roll about with seemingly perpetual motion. It is doubtful (or very rare) that they actually "jump" above the surface of the ground, but they can certainly roll and tumble along in different directions. Just as pineapples are not apples and peanuts are not nuts, the jumping bean is not a bean, nor is it a seed. It is actually a small, thin-shelled section of a seed capsule containing the larva of a small gray moth called the jumping bean moth (Laspeyresia saltitans). After consuming the seed within the capsule section, the robust, yellowish-white larva has the peculiar habit of throwing itself forcibly from one wall to the other, thereby causing the jumping movements of the capsule. Mexican jumping bean capsules typically separate into three parts or sections, some of which contain a moth larva. It is these separate sections (technically called carpels) that are sold as 'jumping beans'." Nothing that breaks Newton's laws here. This is akin to being inside a large, flexible ball and causing it to roll all over the place. Or rolling all over in a large innertube. And there's no going "up"! Mexican jumping beans can roll all over the place, but they don't leave the ground. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius Nice post but they do jump off the ground. Rolling is easy and done more often but they are called "jumping beans" and that name fits. Put them on a hot stove and they jump higher Bert > Painius Nice post but they do jump off the ground. Rolling is easy and > done more often but they are called "jumping beans" and that name fits. > Put them on a hot stove and they jump higher Bert Impossible, and i ain't playin'. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net [Mexican jumping beans] > Nothing that breaks Newton's laws here. This is akin to > being inside a large, flexible ball and causing it to roll all > over the place. Or rolling all over in a large innertube. > > And there's no going "up"! Mexican jumping beans can > roll all over the place, but they don't leave the ground. Sure they can, if the larva happens to jump upward from the bottom of the capsule with sufficient vigour. As it pushes off, the force is transferred through the 'floor', which in turn experiences an equal reaction force from the ground, so that the work the larva does while jumping is mostly converted to kinetic energy of upward motion. When it collides with the 'ceiling' some of its momentum will be transferred to the capsule, briefly lifting it off the ground. You can do something similar with a large cardboard box: stand inside and jump into the air, grabbing the sides immediately after your feet leave the floor. You can lift the box off the ground this way, and even hop in a chosen direction, without directly applying force to anything outside the box; again it's the reaction force from the floor underneath that 'balances the books'. SignatureOdysseus > [Mexican jumping beans] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > outside the box; again it's the reaction force from the floor underneath > that 'balances the books'. No way. I can't see it... "When it collides with the 'ceiling' some of its momentum will be transferred to the capsule, briefly lifting it off the ground." Now i agree with the part about the worm pushing off and force being transferred through to the floor. This is the third law at work. So i should have said, "Mexican jumping beans can roll all over the place, but they only rarely leave the ground." But there is no way that i can see for the worm's energy when it collides with the ceiling to lift the capsule off the ground. This sounds exactly like Bert's kicking the inside wall of the wagon to no avail. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > > [Mexican jumping beans] > > When it collides with the 'ceiling' some of its momentum will be > > transferred to the capsule, briefly lifting it off the ground. > Now i agree with the part about the worm pushing off and > force being transferred through to the floor. This is the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ground. This sounds exactly like Bert's kicking the inside > wall of the wagon to no avail. No, because in that case the forces on all parts of the wagon balance: the forward thrust of Bert's feet is matched by a rearward force transmitted through his seat (or his rear foot, if he's standing up in the wagon). If he were to place the wagon on the street with its rear wheels against the curb, then jump forward, pushing off against the rear inner wall of the wagon bed, when he lands on the wagon it will roll forward. This would be a better analogy for the jumping-bean situation; here the curb supplies the reaction force. SignatureOdysseus Ody A pendulum shows action and equal reaction so clearly,and yet are their swing completely 100% equal? Is inertia 100% equal to gravity? Is accelerating 100% equal to inertia? Is force of impact 100% equal to weight + speed etc Can time be factored in? Most surely great distance it is a factor. Go figure Bert > Ody A pendulum shows action and equal reaction so clearly,and yet are > their swing completely 100% equal? Is inertia 100% equal to gravity? > Is accelerating 100% equal to inertia? Is force of impact 100% equal to > weight + speed etc Can time be factored in? Most surely great > distance it is a factor. Go figure Bert Pendulums show that heavy objects and light objects fall at the same speed, begause a pendulum with a heavy bob will swing at the same rate as a pendulum with a ligjht bob. Only the length of the shaft makes a difference. Double-A Air is not a perfect vacuum .. perfect vacuums are infinitely expensive; so, given the same surface, a heavier a pendulum ticks longer. > Air is not a perfect vacuum .. perfect vacuums are infinitely expensive; > so, given the same surface, a heavier a pendulum ticks longer. Oddly, we can all look directly at the 1e-21 bar vacuum of the Selene/ moon L1, and it's essentially free for the taking. I mean, how good of a near perfect vacuum deal is that? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth The Earth-Moon L1's “ 10^-21 bar vacuum ” isn't “ free for the taking ”. Helium is used to pre-cool liquid hydrogen, the Saturn V booster ( Apollo ) needed about 13 million cubic feet of helium to launch. Helium is very expensive, especially liquid helium. If getting to L1 allowed us to breed faster, we'd already be there. > The Earth-Moon L1's “ 10^-21 bar vacuum ” isn't “ free for the taking ”. It actually is less than dirt cheap and first come first served, and it looks as though China is going to be in charge of the Selene/moon L1. I hope we can remain nice to China, because otherwise that nifty L-1 could offer China quite a tactical (aka star wars) advantage. > Helium is used to pre-cool liquid hydrogen, > the Saturn V booster ( Apollo ) needed > about 13 million cubic feet of helium to launch. > > Helium is very expensive, especially liquid helium. > If getting to L1 allowed us to breed faster, we'd already be there. I'm not well enough informed about all of that spendy Helium. However, that's certainly a valid though weird argument about using the moon's L1, however our DNA might have to evolve into something a bit rad-hard, or at least as good as that of a cockroach, that is unless we had a substantial load of nifty shielding as protecting our Earth-moon L1 abode. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > Air is not a perfect vacuum .. perfect vacuums are infinitely expensive; > so, given the same surface, a heavier a pendulum ticks longer. But no faster or slower. Double-A Double-A Length of pendulum staff is the same as planets distance from the Sun. To prove your point Jupiter and Earth can switch orbits with no problem. You don't have to drop stuff off the tower of Piza,you can use an incline plane. Bert > Double-A Length of pendulum staff is the same as planets distance from > the Sun. To prove your point Jupiter and Earth can switch orbits with > no problem. Good point. > You don't have to drop stuff off the tower of Piza,you can > use an incline plane. Bert Yes. An incline plane can help you access that tower of pizzas. Yum! Double-A Just made some pop corn. What is the equal action to Pop? Also this is my secret for making the best tender pop corn. After half have pop take the bag out of micro wave,and eat. Put the old maids back in till they pop. That way you will have tender and not dried out pop corn. Try it you will like it better Bert What if pop corn obeys the Heisenberg "Uncertainty Principle"? It does Bert > What if pop corn obeys the Heisenberg "Uncertainty Principle"? It does > Bert Perhaps even Orville Renenbacher cannot guarantee that every kernal will pop, as that would go against Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It would be unnatural! Double-A Maybe you should buy higher-quality popcorn, BEERTbrain! lmao! Saul Levy >What if pop corn obeys the Heisenberg "Uncertainty Principle"? It does >Bert Cactus saul You are right I buy kosher hot dogs and they cost more,but I know they are 100% beef. I would buy kosher pop corn but its not around. Still corn is corn,and I like "pop" obeying uncertainty Principle because its probably right Go figure bert PS With a name like Saul Levy you could go into the kosher pop corn business and make a ton of money. Kosher means clean,and that could be your motto. Keep in mind the government would never say a product has salmonella in it if its marked kosher. I just made you a rich Jew. Poor Jews are hard to find in Arizona. Go figure Bert I'm a poor Jew in Arizona, BEERTbrain! lmao! Think I'll stay that way too! Saul Levy >Cactus saul You are right I buy kosher hot dogs and they cost more,but >I know they are 100% beef. I would buy kosher pop corn but its not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >its marked kosher. I just made you a rich Jew. Poor Jews are hard >to find in Arizona. Go figure Bert Cactus Saul Paul Newman sells pop corn(I buy that brand) He is Jewish,but you have the best name for "kosher pop corn' You don't have to drop your pants to prove its kosher corn. Bert I rarely drop my pants over popcorn, BEERTbrain! lmao! Saul Levy >Cactus Saul Paul Newman sells pop corn(I buy that brand) He is >Jewish,but you have the best name for "kosher pop corn' You don't have >to drop your pants to prove its kosher corn. Bert Cactus Saul That joke just pop into my mind and it was very corny Still you can be a rich Jew like most if you branded food with "Kosher by Saul Levy" Reality is every rabbi in the world loves your name. It has great meaning in Hebrew. The only way people will start eating tomatoes again if you Saul make them kosher. If you listened to me you would go down in history as Cactus Saul the man that saved the tomado Go figure Bert I hate raw tomatoes, BEERTbrain! lmao! Now ketchup is different! Saul Levy >Cactus Saul That joke just pop into my mind and it was very corny >Still you can be a rich Jew like most if you branded food with "Kosher [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you would go down in history as Cactus Saul the man that saved the >tomado Go figure Bert Cactus Saul I respect your taste buds but tomadoes are mostly eaten like apples raw. Fact is they are a fruit and are in the apple family. Ooops This just jumped in The rose is in with them too Go figure bert Are you off your meds, BEERTbrain? lmao! My mother loved them, I don't. You ever seen Attack of the Killer Tomatoes? Saul Levy >Cactus Saul I respect your taste buds but tomadoes are mostly eaten >like apples raw. Fact is they are a fruit and are in the apple family. >Ooops This just jumped in The rose is in with them too Go figure >bert Cactus saul My meds are 5 pills a day. Can't find any crazy mushrooms. Still as crazy as I( am I have a great idea(million dollar idea) to make every kernel pop. Bert Air poppers do that, BEERTbrain! lmao! They beat you to whatever idea you have. You win the lottery yet? Saul Levy >Cactus saul My meds are 5 pills a day. Can't find any crazy mushrooms. >Still as crazy as I( am I have a great idea(million dollar idea) to make >every kernel pop. Bert Cactus Saul Right you are my invention relates to that,but its all done in the bag so to speak. Have not won the lotto,and naughtier has Treb. I guess that's what being parrel is all about. Still Treb having a time laps (created before me) he could give me a future time reading. Evidently the time laps is much to short. I did not speak to him for weeks,but I hate to hold a grudge Bert&Treb > Cactus Saul I respect your taste buds but tomadoes are mostly eaten > like apples raw. Fact is they are a fruit and are in the apple family. > Ooops This just jumped in The rose is in with them too Go figure > bert Tomatoes are in the potato and deadly nightshade family. Apples are in a different family with roses. Double-A Double-A Are you sure the tomato is in the potato family? I hate to be wrong as Cactus saul will confirm oh ya Bert “ The tomato is [ in the ] nightshade family, as are its close cousins tobacco, chili peppers, potato, and eggplant. The tomato is native to Central, South, and southern North America from Mexico to Argentina. ” -- WikiPedia To ya All Sending out two ideas to PAUL nEWMAN ON better pop corn. Great ways to sell it over all others. The reasons for doing this for free are many Paul and I look like twins. He does a lot for children such as I and he does it free Such as I I put my life on line,and in the days of Nixen so did he. We relate I love him as I do Treb We are two sides to the same coin Bert > To ya All Sending out two ideas to PAUL nEWMAN ON better pop corn. > Great ways to sell it over all others. The reasons for doing this for > free are many Paul and I look like twins. He does a lot for children > such as I and he does it free Such as I I put my life on line,and in > the days of Nixen so did he. We relate I love him as I do Treb We are > two sides to the same coin Bert Don't count me out. I wrote a letter to Nixon protesting the war. I guess that put me on his "enemies list". Double-A P.S. He never responded, not even with a form letter. Paul Newman I cant get through on your www.newmansown.com So email me and I will make sure people will only want your popcorn. I ask nothing for my ideas. We are very much alike. Doing what we can to save children. I have a great love for Connecticut. Been to Mystic many times,and sailed in its bay. Oops I almost forgot I have blue eyes and we are the same age Go figure Bert > Just made some pop corn. What is the equal action to Pop? Also this is > my secret for making the best tender pop corn. After half have pop take > the bag out of micro wave,and eat. Put the old maids back in till they > pop. That way you will have tender and not dried out pop corn. Try it > you will like it better Bert You don't like them burned at the core? But good question. where is the equal and opposite reaction to "pop"? Newton's third law could be on the line here! Double-A >> Just made some pop corn. What is the equal action to Pop? Also this is >> my secret for making the best tender pop corn. After half have pop take [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Double-A And if only Newton could have seen it!... It's gravitational. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius No pop corn in Newton's spacetime. As a kid I made pop corn by taking the lid of the top of our very big black stove(must have weighed 600 lb) It burned coal. Had a big wire net to hold the corn. Rich people used their fire place. Still rich or poor most of the corn came out burned. If a micro wave oven could only be used to pop corn it would be worth its weight in gold. Eating pop corn means you won't get colon cancer. pop corn in chocolate milk is good breakfast food. I love pop corn Bert. I hear it causes diverticulitis, BEERTbrain! lmao! Saul Levy >Painius No pop corn in Newton's spacetime. As a kid I made pop corn by >taking the lid of the top of our very big black stove(must have weighed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >colon cancer. pop corn in chocolate milk is good breakfast food. I love >pop corn Bert >> Painius No pop corn in Newton's spacetime. As a kid I made pop corn by >> taking the lid of the top of our very big black stove(must have weighed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Saul Levy Which is why, though i love popcorn, i can't touch the stuff. And it only causes diverticulitis in someone who has diverticulosis, as i do. I also must steer clear of nuts, well, the edible kind, anyway. <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net I love nuts! I too have a bit of diverticulitis. According to my colonoscopist. He's an Arab too! lmao! Saul Levy >>> Painius No pop corn in Newton's spacetime. As a kid I made pop corn by >>> taking the lid of the top of our very big black stove(must have weighed [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I also must steer clear of nuts, well, the edible kind, >anyway. <g> >>>> Painius No pop corn in Newton's spacetime. As a kid I made pop corn by >>>> taking the lid of the top of our very big black stove(must have weighed [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Saul Levy They get stuck in the diverticulae and enflame them. (the nuts, not the Arabs) happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Popcorn can do the same thing, Paine. Arabs, on the other hand, get stuck in my craw! lmao! Saul Levy >They get stuck in the diverticulae and enflame them. > >(the nuts, not the Arabs) Catus Saul and Painius Sorry to hear your guts can't digest popcorn. It is a wonder food. People over weight should fill their stomach with popcorn.I could not watch a movie without popcorn. Tastes good dipped in honey. Who as a kid did not save up a nickel for Krack-a- Jacks and love the prize. Those were the best of times Bert > Catus Saul and Painius Sorry to hear your guts can't digest popcorn. > It is a wonder food. People over weight should fill their stomach with > popcorn.I could not watch a movie without popcorn. Tastes good dipped in > honey. Who as a kid did not save up a nickel for Krack-a- Jacks and love > the prize. Those were the best of times Bert I don't know but i've been told, Bert, that some astronomers got their diplomas out of a Cracker Jack box! <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius Einstein when 7 got his compass that put him in the right track from a Cracker Jack box. Bert |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message