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

[gravityblock]

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

Many things are beyond a person's scope of understanding not because of their poor reasoning power, but because of the narrowness of their scope.  MarkE and Dan the downer are good examples of this.  The narrowness of a person's scope can lead to misunderstandings and absurdities.

Gravock

[allcanadian]

@Gravityblock

Many things are beyond a person's scope of understanding not because of their
poor reasoning power, but because of the narrowness of their scope.  MarkE and
Dan the downer are good examples of this.  The narrowness of a person's scope
can lead to misunderstandings and absurdities.

Edit: my last post was just nitpicking
I think this is where theory and philosophy come into play because we cannot build what we cannot imagine. We can do all the experiments we want however if we cannot exceed our own limitations then we are not going anywhere.

For more information, see Rhythmodynamics of Nature.

Awesome link...Thanks

AC

[MarkE]

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

Actually integral calculus is very important to the example.  The two separate actions of ejecting the two rocks under the conditions stipulated result in net changes of velocity: integrals of acceleration.  Had no rock been ejected, the boat would have had some position versus time profile in the reference frame.  Ejecting each rock alters the motion of the boat.  In the simplest case, the boat would have been initially stationary in the frame.  The momentum of either ejected rock in the reference frame and the ratios of the masses after the ejection determines the total change in velocity of the boat.  The boat's position integrates that change in velocity forever, as it does all subsequent changes in velocity.

[MarkE]

@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.

@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

Round and round we go.  Unless you reject Newton's Laws: force accelerates mass.  The property of inertia simply expresses that relationship.  If you wish to insist that inertia is a force then without me specifying a location, kindly tell me how many Newton's a 1kg mass exerts, and in what direction that force vector points.

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

Round and round we go. 

Round and round we go indeed however I had to get off the merry-go-round a long time ago because it made me dizzy,lol.

Unless you reject Newton's Laws: force accelerates mass.

I accept the fact a tangible force is required to accelerate any mass however I also accept the fact this accelerating force is resisted.... did Newton happen to mention the fact one force acting on a mass can only be resisted by another force?.

If you wish to insist that inertia is a force then without me specifying a location, kindly tell me how many Newton's a 1kg mass exerts, and in what direction that force vector points.

I have been down that road twisting and turning this way and that and I always ended right back where I started...go figure. Thus I choose not to participate in such things, as you say round and round.



AC