'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[MarkE]

ROFLMAO.  Yes, and this is the reason why a rocket isn't the same as throwing rocks in opposite directions simultaneously from a boat in order to achieve motion.  According to Newton's Third Law, the forces should be cancelled when throwing rocks in opposite directions from a boat, but this isn't always the case as previously shown by the boat/rock example.


Gravock

I get the idea that you are having trouble with integral calculus.

[gravityblock]

The boat example does not negate inertia.  It demonstrates it.  Let us assume that the water is frictionless as was stated.  The boat accelerates in the opposite direction of each ejected mass.  When the first mass is ejected, the boat attains a velocity proportional to the ejected mass and inversely proportional to the remaining mass of the boat.  When the second mass is ejected, the boat velocity changes by an amount proportional to the speed of the second mass and inversely proportional to the newly reduced mass of the boat.  If the two ejected masses are equal and their velocities relative to the external frame of reference are equal and opposite then the boat comes to rest albeit at a position that has shifted from the starting point.  If an equal amount of energy is imparted to each mass as it is thrown, then the boat ends up moving at a low speed in the same direction as the first rock was thrown.  This is all because of Newton's three laws.

Read the publication MarkE.  It says, "And suppose such process were sufficiently prolonged and had wave nature, i.e. were invisible and proceeded without the loss of mass?"  You need to improve on your reading comprehension.  It's one of the reasons why you always take things out of context and mix things together that was meant to be separate from one another.  The below comic is a good illustration in how MarkE the downer is disconnected, as shown by his replies.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

I get the idea that you are having trouble with integral calculus.

I get the idea you can't grasp the elementary truths of this world.  Integral calculus doesn't even come into the equation in the boat/rock example, since the mass of the boat was to remain the same throughout the throwing of the rocks.  One false hood or wrong assumption (mass being reduced) led to a greater false hood (integral calculus).  LOL.

Gravock

[allcanadian]

@Gravityblock

A rocket doesn't eject mass in opposite directions to achieve motion as is
being done with throwing rocks from a boat in opposite directions.  Ejecting
mass in opposite directions from a rocket simultaneously or throwing rocks of
equal mass from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions doesn't induce a
net motion (the forces are cancelled).  However, throwing rocks of equal mass in
opposite directions at different times does induce a net motion through phase
displacement, which is motion without inertia or resistance.

Cancellation also relates to Gravity. If we drop a lead ball and a cork ball of equal size the force of gravity is much greater on the lead ball having more mass. The force of Gravity is greater on the lead ball because it has more mass however the counter-force of Inertia is also greater for the same reason. When we drop our balls in the same instant from the same height gravity accelerates the ball downward as Inertia resists this acceleration and they cancel... which is why the lead ball and the cork ball hit the ground at the same time.

The quagmire here is that we conceive that Gravity must be a force acting between two objects causing them to accelerate towards one another . If Gravity is a force causing the objects to accelerate towards each other and Inertia is a counter-force which resists this acceleration then how can this counter-force apply itself on a free falling body?. A force cannot act on itself in itself which is absurd thus it would seem to me the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally. In my mind it is absurd that anyone would presume the property of Inertia just is or that it is simply a property of mass. All motion/acceleration and the resistance to motion/acceleration must always relate to tangible forces on some level at some point in time. Thus when someone tells me inertia is just a property of mass I consider there intellect to be on the same level as people who speak of something from nothing and perpetual motion machines because something cannot act on nothing... it is not an option.

@Mark E
Science is not a religion and your quoting your scripture holds no weight unless you can explain real world examples in a tangible way. Inertia amounts to something acting on nothing and as I said that is not an option because it is simply a different flavor of fairy tale... nothing more.

AC

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
Cancellation also relates to Gravity. If we drop a lead ball and a cork ball of equal size the force of gravity is much greater on the lead ball having more mass. The force of Gravity is greater on the lead ball because it has more mass however the counter-force of Inertia is also greater for the same reason. When we drop our balls in the same instant from the same height gravity accelerates the ball downward as Inertia resists this acceleration and they cancel... which is why the lead ball and the cork ball hit the ground at the same time.

The quagmire here is that we conceive that Gravity must be a force acting between two objects causing them to accelerate towards one another . If Gravity is a force causing the objects to accelerate towards each other and Inertia is a counter-force which resists this acceleration then how can this counter-force apply itself on a free falling body?. A force cannot act on itself in itself which is absurd thus it would seem to me the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally. In my mind it is absurd that anyone would presume the property of Inertia just is or that it is simply a property of mass. All motion/acceleration and the resistance to motion/acceleration must always relate to tangible forces on some level at some point in time. Thus when someone tells me inertia is just a property of mass I consider there intellect to be on the same level as people who speak of something from nothing and perpetual motion machines because something cannot act on nothing... it is not an option.

AC

Well said!  What you're saying isn't much different than what RD is saying.

According to RD, an object has a 'feel' of inertia when force is applied not to all object's elements at once, but to some of them.  If it were applied to all at once as is the case with gravitation, the feeling of inertia would be absent.  I agree, the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally.

Gravock