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

[MarkE]

There is a distinction between a Net Force and No Net Force.  To think otherwise is absurd.  Net F=mA does not take all F into account as you have wrongly and falsely asserted.  Net F=mA does not take into account a force that is being equally resisted with the same intensity of said force.  Thus, one statement is true and the other is false.

Gravock

LOL, forces obey linear superposition.  There is no mathematical and no physical difference between applying each force individually, or taking only the sum of all forces.  If one neglects to count all the forces, then one can apply for an accounting job at Enron.

[gravityblock]

LOL, forces obey linear superposition.  There is no mathematical and no physical difference between applying each force individually, or taking only the sum of all forces.  If one neglects to count all the forces, then one can apply for an accounting job at Enron.

You're neglecting to account for an object that is resisting a force with the same intensity of said force, thus there is no net force and no acceleration of this object.  Resistance is a force, and it is you is neglecting to count all the forces, not me.  This is another psychological projection by you.  You're definitely more than qualified for an accounting job an Enron.

There is a mathematical and physical difference between applying each force individually or taking only the sum of all forces.  There is a difference in throwing rocks from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions (taking only the sum of all forces), as compared to throwing rocks at different times in opposite directions (applying each force individually).  One results in a Net Force and a motion, and the other results in no net force and no motion.

Gravock

[TinselKoala]

Both TK and MarkE have conveniently left out the acceleration equation that is inside F=mA.  It's a common practice for MarkE and his minions to conveniently leave things out.  If the initial and final speed are both the same, then there is no acceleration, regardless of the value for the time interval. The acceleration equation and the result of that equation speaks for itself, as we see below.

Gravock

I most certainly did NOT leave anything out. I showed, with checkable valid outside references, how the acceleration due to gravity IS the "A" in F=mA and produces the measurable and _calculatable_ weight that a stationary object exerts on a scale.  The equation F=mA is a definition, just like Ohm's Law is a definition. Both define each of three quantities in terms of the other two. Mass is that which responds to acceleration by a force. Acceleration is what happens when you apply a force to a mass. Force is the result of accelerating a mass. The force that we call "WEIGHT" is the result of a mass being _stationary_ in an accelerating field: that of gravity.
You can do the math, and see that it gives the correct answer. Under your mistaken assertions, the math yields incorrect and/or inconsistent answers.

[MarkE]

You're neglecting to account for an object that is resisting a force with the same intensity of said force, thus there is no net force and no acceleration of this object.  Resistance is a force, and it is you is neglecting to count all the forces, not me.  This is another psychological projection by you.  You're definitely more than qualified for an accounting job an Enron.

There is a mathematical and physical difference between applying each force individually or taking only the sum of all forces.  There is a difference in throwing rocks from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions (taking only the sum of all forces), as compared to throwing rocks at different times in opposite directions (applying each force individually).  One results in a Net Force and a motion, and the other results in no net force and no motion.

Gravock

The equations I wrote tell all.  If you are intent on continuing to resist reality, flail away to no avail.

[gravityblock]

MarkE and TK has once again violated the principal of cause and effect!  They have violated the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. Newton's first law of dynamics states, "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change this state by forces impressed upon it".  In this statement, we see at once a violation of the principle of the cause and effect relationships.

Motion is a result of a net force, but it is missing in Newton's first law; there is no mathematical model of this law, which describes its constant movement in space, but a body ignores it and moves with constant velocity V. The discrepancies being described are a cause of a violation of the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. This principle requires a description of the process or the phenomenon from its very beginning, not from the middle.

In order to return the principle of the cause and effect relationships into the former Newtonian dynamics, it is necessary to put the law of the accelerated motion of a body to the first place.  As a result, we'll get a new dynamics. In order to differentiate it from the old dynamics, Kanarev calls it "Mechanodynamics".

Gravock