=>
=> Maybe I missed something but…
=>
=> I don’t see where Gravity or Atmosphere have any cause to
=> rocket propulsion.  
=
=Hi Rich,
=
=What about inertia?
=
=> As I understand it, propulsion, in any
=> case, stems from an action/reaction event whether that event
=> is the event-point of pushing your foot against the ground
=> to walk or the event-point of igniting rocket fuel at the
=> tail of a rocket to fly.
=
=Ok, but I think that your event-point justifies it all in your mind.  
=Your F-E–F "ideal" uses exact identical opposing mass and I would
=be forced to agree with you were this scenario actually possible.  It
=would even work in a perfect vacuum, but fortunately for me this
=perfect condition can’t exist regardless of how minute the difference,

Sorry, Ryals, but once again you demonstrate that you can’t even be bothered to
learn elementary physics.  Nowhere does the standard analysis require exactly
equal masses, and I have absolutely no idea where you came up with that
ludicrous idea.

=I’m still stuck on resistance to pressure when you push you foot
=against the ground, and inertia, as resistance to pressure when
=you ignite rocket fuel.  The exhaust gases resist leaving the rocket
=due to their inertia, so some of the momentum is transferred back to  
=the rocket and that is the reaction to the action, and the reason
=that the rocket will move.  Without this containment, or resistance
=to pressure, (inertia), there could be no reaction.
=
=You had better watch it or someone will be telling you that you don’t
=understand Newton next,

Not at all, shit-for-brains:  He’s demonstrated that he DOES know what he’s
talking about.  You, on the other hand, demonstrate your cluelessness in each
and every post you make.

=> Maybe that "rocket pushing against the ejected matter"
=> analogy was a bit primitive.  A better one may be…
=> Imagine an exploding hand grenade.  The energetic event is of
=> course the explosion, the resultant forces are the various
=> diametrically opposed flying pieces of shrapnel.
=
=>                            (F=E=-F)

Ah, I see.  You took his EXAMPLE and concluded that the assumptions of the
example were somehow critical to the more general case.  Yet another
demonstration that you’re utterly clueless.

=Nothing, in fact, it would make for one heck of an explosion, since
=the necessary semi-containment is in the shell of the grenade, but if
=you were to put a hole in the shell, and explode it in a true vacuum,
=than the force would be felt everywhere inside the shell except the
=inside surface opposite to the hole, which contradicts the whole rocket
=propulsion theory, in a vacuum, that is.

Bullshit.  How is it that you’re stupid enough to overlook the fact that the
force would NOT be felt on the hole?  There’s no shell there to feel it.  So
your example is perfectly consistent with rocket propulsion theory, and not, as
you’ve deluded yourself into believing, a contradiction of it.

=Assuming that the shell of
=the grenade didn’t give out, than the mass released by the explosion
=would simply blast out into the vacuum without imparting any pressure
=to the surface point opposite to the hole of the grenade where it would
=cause it to move in the opposite direction from this blast since the
=tendency of the mass to leave the container, would be resisted by nothing…  

On what possible basis do you conclude that no force would be exerted on the
shell opposite the hole?
——————————————————————————–
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: C…@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That’s what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

hatu…@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:

> In article <4c9hcb$…@sundial.sundial.net>, Ryals  <isl…@sundial.net> wrote:
> –
> [...]
> –
> >Ok, but I think that your event-point justifies it all in your mind.  
> >Your F-E–F "ideal" uses exact identical opposing mass and I would
> >be forced to agree with you were this scenario actually possible.  It
> >would even work in a perfect vacuum, but fortunately for me this
> >perfect condition can’t exist regardless of how minute the difference,
> >there can be no two exact identical masses just as there can be no two
> >identical snowflakes, and this has been proven to the current extent
> >of our technological ability, many times.   Your probably thinking
> >that it wouldn’t make that much difference, but in a perfect vacuum    
> >with no available inertia, it would make all the difference in the
> >world.  
> –
> You’re interpretation is wrong. F=-F, regardless of mass. In a closed
> system, all forces must sum to zero.

Your right, and I didn’t say anything different from that.

> >I’m still stuck on resistance to pressure when you push you foot
> >against the ground, and inertia, as resistance to pressure when
> >you ignite rocket fuel.  The exhaust gases resist leaving the rocket
> >due to their inertia, so some of the momentum is transferred back to  
> >the rocket and that is the reaction to the action, and the reason
> >that the rocket will move.  Without this containment, or resistance
> >to pressure, (inertia), there could be no reaction.
> –
> Your interpretation is again wrong. The forward motion of a rocket is
> due to pressure against the forward wall of the reaction chamber caused
> by the ignited gases

My interpretation is not wrong since the "pressure against the forward
wall" could not be delivered without inertia.  Again, you seem to be
referring to a closed system.

> which is unbalanced by forces to the rear, since
> the rear is open to space.

This would also be correct in a closed system.

> >Nature directs that things occur in layers.  That they move from dense
> >to "lite" with respect to pressure, and so space is a layer of matter
> >that is simply lighter than gas.  Land-water-air-space-?   Also,
> >Dense-Earth/Lite-Earth Dense-Water/Lite-Water Dense-Air/Lite-air
> >Dense-Space/Lite-Space Dense-? / ?…
> neo-Aristotelianism?

Nope, only Natural.

-
[...]
–
>Ok, but I think that your event-point justifies it all in your mind.  
>Your F-E–F "ideal" uses exact identical opposing mass and I would
>be forced to agree with you were this scenario actually possible.  It
>would even work in a perfect vacuum, but fortunately for me this
>perfect condition can’t exist regardless of how minute the difference,
>there can be no two exact identical masses just as there can be no two
>identical snowflakes, and this has been proven to the current extent
>of our technological ability, many times.   Your probably thinking
>that it wouldn’t make that much difference, but in a perfect vacuum    
>with no available inertia, it would make all the difference in the
>world.  

-
You’re interpretation is wrong. F=-F, regardless of mass. In a closed
system, all forces must sum to zero.
–
>I’m still stuck on resistance to pressure when you push you foot
>against the ground, and inertia, as resistance to pressure when
>you ignite rocket fuel.  The exhaust gases resist leaving the rocket
>due to their inertia, so some of the momentum is transferred back to  
>the rocket and that is the reaction to the action, and the reason
>that the rocket will move.  Without this containment, or resistance
>to pressure, (inertia), there could be no reaction.

-
Your interpretation is again wrong. The forward motion of a rocket is
due to pressure against the forward wall of the reaction chamber caused
by the ignited gases which is unbalanced by forces to the rear, since
the rear is open to space.
–
[...]
–
>Nature directs that things occur in layers.  That they move from dense
>to "lite" with respect to pressure, and so space is a layer of matter
>that is simply lighter than gas.  Land-water-air-space-?   Also,
>Dense-Earth/Lite-Earth Dense-Water/Lite-Water Dense-Air/Lite-air
>Dense-Space/Lite-Space Dense-? / ?…

-
neo-Aristotelianism?
–
—

    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatu…@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

> Maybe I missed something but…

> I don’t see where Gravity or Atmosphere have any cause to
> rocket propulsion.  

Hi Rich,

What about inertia?

> As I understand it, propulsion, in any
> case, stems from an action/reaction event whether that event
> is the event-point of pushing your foot against the ground
> to walk or the event-point of igniting rocket fuel at the
> tail of a rocket to fly.

Ok, but I think that your event-point justifies it all in your mind.  
Your F-E–F "ideal" uses exact identical opposing mass and I would
be forced to agree with you were this scenario actually possible.  It
would even work in a perfect vacuum, but fortunately for me this
perfect condition can’t exist regardless of how minute the difference,
there can be no two exact identical masses just as there can be no two
identical snowflakes, and this has been proven to the current extent
of our technological ability, many times.   Your probably thinking
that it wouldn’t make that much difference, but in a perfect vacuum    
with no available inertia, it would make all the difference in the
world.  

I’m still stuck on resistance to pressure when you push you foot
against the ground, and inertia, as resistance to pressure when
you ignite rocket fuel.  The exhaust gases resist leaving the rocket
due to their inertia, so some of the momentum is transferred back to  
the rocket and that is the reaction to the action, and the reason
that the rocket will move.  Without this containment, or resistance
to pressure, (inertia), there could be no reaction.

You had better watch it or someone will be telling you that you don’t
understand Newton next, since "inertia is fundamental to the ability
to transfer momentum" which I also agree with, as long as it occurs    
within the "relative constraints" of some close system, some confines,  
or some "layer".  

> Gravity, Atmospheric resistance, friction or whatever only serve
> to impede propulsion, not cause it.

I have argued that the impedance is overcome by the additional mass
that is ejected into the medium.  Isolated pressure against the
relative resistance overcomes ambient resistance.  Ambient pressure
becomes less of a factor when it is reduced, and the semi-contained
stream of exhaust gases becomes more of a factor as this occurs.        
This is the reason that a jet or an ICBM becomes more efficient at
higher altitudes, as it is a proven fact that efficiency is inversely
proportional to the density of the medium that it is flying through.  
Carry that logic into space and inertia, or the semi-containment of
the exhaust gases, enables the rocket to push against its own stream
of ejected matter.    

I hope that you don’t mind that I’ve <snipped> some of rest of your
points, but I think that they have all been addressed above, and I
didn’t delete your last and most difficult question.  I like your
concept and I use a similar method, but I don’t want to get too far
into it until I get past this space thing with the physics wiz that
I have been talking to, since he seems to be the most knowledgable
and more rational than any of the others that I have talked to yet.    

> Maybe that "rocket pushing against the ejected matter"
> analogy was a bit primitive.  A better one may be…
> Imagine an exploding hand grenade.  The energetic event is of
> course the explosion, the resultant forces are the various
> diametrically opposed flying pieces of shrapnel.
>                            (F=E=-F)

                              + 0 –  
I call it Nature’s formula or Nature’s pseudo-formula or Nature’s
whatever-ula since the Math dept. informs me that Nature doesn’t do    
math, and I guess that I would have to agree seeing as how we humans
aren’t a part of nature, and because we are separate from, and above
nature and all that…        
                              NOT!!!    

> What’s gravity or atmosphere got to do with that except to
> keep the shrapnel from flying through space & time forever?

>  - Rich

Nothing, in fact, it would make for one heck of an explosion, since
the necessary semi-containment is in the shell of the grenade, but if
you were to put a hole in the shell, and explode it in a true vacuum,
than the force would be felt everywhere inside the shell except the
inside surface opposite to the hole, which contradicts the whole rocket
propulsion theory, in a vacuum, that is.  Assuming that the shell of
the grenade didn’t give out, than the mass released by the explosion
would simply blast out into the vacuum without imparting any pressure
to the surface point opposite to the hole of the grenade where it would
cause it to move in the opposite direction from this blast since the
tendency of the mass to leave the container, would be resisted by nothing…  

                    and "nothing" can’t exist,

nor is it even remotely logical to think that this "nothing" is what
occupies the space between the "few" atoms per cu whatever, that are    
admitted to exist in space.

I use the following accepted notions of science to back up my postulate:    

The conservation law states that "conservation of mass is a law–
which is true for the universe as a "whole", provided that the universe
can be considered a "closed" system".  

To me, closed means contained, since nothing can enter or leave, but
the meaning of closed gets argued to death, so now I am also using
Mach’s principle to support this conclusion for without some form of
containment, be it air or space-gravity, their would be no inertia,
and, therefore, no resistance to the ejection of the mass, therefore,
no reaction, therefore,   no – go – Houston.

Its not like I mean that there is a bottle around the universe or
something, rather infinitely progressive layers of ever lessening
density.  More likely, it is alternating light and dense layers, that
lessen in overall density over the long haul outward, and gain in
density over the long haul inward, if that makes any sense.  I’m not
exactly sure just how that applies, I just know that it does.

> PS: I have a strong interest in gravity theories.  I’d like
>     to hear more on that lite & dense matter thing.  Einstein’s
>     mass-spatial theory keeps bringing me back to that
>     aether-like material as defining space.

I don’t really want to go too much further with this yet either,
because I am already streatching what people will deal with at one
time.  I am guessing that Jim will be back to admit defeat (ha) on
tuesday, then maybe we can carry on, in the mean time I would just say
that you keep going back to a reference point that you can physically  
relate to.  The problem is that the ancient notion of aether has
been regarded as unnecessary to propagate light.  My understand is
that this is probably true, but I don’t think of the matter that is
space as necessary, I simply look at it as there.  Rather than a part  
of some wave transmission, I see it as a relatively minor impedance
to the movement of the light.  Rather than going back to the classical
textbook version, try Nature’s logic instead.  

Nature directs that things occur in layers.  That they move from dense
to "lite" with respect to pressure, and so space is a layer of matter
that is simply lighter than gas.  Land-water-air-space-?   Also,
Dense-Earth/Lite-Earth Dense-Water/Lite-Water Dense-Air/Lite-air
Dense-Space/Lite-Space Dense-? / ?…

If anyone tells you that this is only true in a gravity-well, ask them,
where is out of a gravity-well?   If you find out, than please tell me?

Rick

Rick