Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

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,

Oh, he knew it well enough for most purposes.

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.

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.

--
Timberwoof 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.

Painius I never stated my feet were inside the walls of a rocket I said
I push the "wagon" with my feet. Lets go with pull The curve of a sail
creates a pull. One side of the sail is pulling (the outside) and inside
the sail(facing the wind) is pushing. Are push and pull equal here? Are
they not going in the same direction. If my rocket ship runs out of
exploding gas and has no pressure on its forward wall can I get it to
accelerate again by creating a large opening in its exhaust back end and
have the Sun's trillions trillion trillion trillion come through to push
against the closed wall. Much like a Sun sail NASA is fooling with.
Lets think equal "forces" Sun created and works continually on two
forces Gravity and Gamma photons. Both are needed to create fusion, the
Sun's shape and size . Here you see again "push in" of gravity's
compression force(thanks oc) and push out by the force of photons. I'm
laughing for I'm trying to get oc to bend in my direction. Painius
Newton and I both could be right. Hope I'm not getting you frustrated
with me. I do "GET IT" I look forward to see how you come back with
your argument(posts) I have the weaker side I know that. Still I can
paint a good picture to show my view. I could keep my argument going
for two more weeks 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

On Jul 3, 5:59*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

One side of the sail is pulling (the outside) and inside
the sail(facing the wind) is pushing. *Are push and pull equal here? Are
they not going in the same direction?

The 'pull' force is entirely a pseudo or fictitious force, i.e.,
'suction'. It's the same as the much-touted Bernoulli effect above an
aircraft wing "pulling" the wing up. The *real* force is the push of
the wind against the sail and the push of the airstream against the
bottom of the plane's wing. In both cases, Newton explains the cause,
Bernoulli describes the (perceived) effect.

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 end (of the balloon) that is "PUSHING" doing the work. It will not let the gas out because its the end that's closed.

Hey Bert, if that is so, why does the balloon not go in a straight
line? Instead, it skittles around chaotically in all directions,
indicating the center of the reactive, propulsive force is the nozzle,
i.e., the point at which the flow is *accelerating" the most.



Open the front closed end
with the same size opening as the back end and equal pressure means
"I'm
right" Go figure Bert

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Painius I never stated my feet were inside the walls of a rocket I said
I push the "wagon" with my feet. Lets go with pull The curve of a sail
creates a pull. One side of the sail is pulling (the outside) and inside
the sail(facing the wind) is pushing. Are push and pull equal here?

"Push" and "pull" really make no difference to the dynamics of a rigid
body when you do the vector analysis.

Are
they not going in the same direction. If my rocket ship runs out of
exploding gas and has no pressure on its forward wall can I get it to
accelerate again by creating a large opening in its exhaust back end and
have the Sun's trillions trillion trillion trillion come through to push
against the closed wall. Much like a Sun sail NASA is fooling with.
Lets think equal "forces" Sun created and works continually on two
forces Gravity and Gamma photons. Both are needed to create fusion, the
Sun's shape and size . Here you see again "push in" of gravity's
compression force(thanks oc) and push out by the force of photons. I'm
laughing for I'm trying to get oc to bend in my direction. Painius
Newton and I both could be right. Hope I'm not getting you frustrated
with me. I do "GET IT" I look forward to see how you come back with
your argument(posts) I have the weaker side I know that. Still I can
paint a good picture to show my view. I could keep my argument going
for two more weeks Bert

Bert, you should read a basic college textbook on statics and dynamics.
Then come back to us about this push/pull thing.

--
Timberwoof 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.

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

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.

--
Timberwoof 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.

"Timberwoof" wrote...
in message
...
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Newton didn't know gravity very well,

Oh, he knew it well enough for most purposes.

Ouch! g That was out of context, TW, and it's all my
fault. I see that you're there with the "Charmed Ones"
(Power of Three) and "the Source" of all evil g.
You say you're into SciFi and planetariums. Have you
ever watched the planetarium version of Isaac Asimov's
"The Last Question"? I saw it at the Denver Planetarium
in '73. It was unconscionably awesomabulous!

Newton knew about the *effects* of gravity well enough
for most purposes. He described those effects and came
up with enough math to keep lesser minds busy for some
time. Then Einstein came along and refined Newton's
descriptions of the *effects* of gravity just a bit. And his
great math, his "field equations", kept lesser minds busy
for about eighty years.

But neither Newton nor Einstein knew gravity very well.
Not gravity itself. As in what *causes* gravity. What is
the source of that pressure that keeps us from floating
away into space?

Scientists are explorers, and they're always looking for
the source of things. Having knowledge of the source of
something might give people an edge in the quest for
survival. Good example might be Burton's and Speke's
search for the source of the Nile river. Finding a source
helps to ensure that the river will always flow. It Might
even lead to a new and better source of energy.

So what is the source of gravity? Since ancient times it
has been thought that "matter attracts matter", that this
Earth, this planet, attracts our bodies and keeps us from
floating off into space. I have a name for this. I call this
the "Pull-Force" paradigm (PFP), an axiom so deeply
embedded in science (with absolutely no proof) that any
time a push force is postulated, it hardly ever gets off
the ground, so to speak.

So when we're young, and we first begin to think about
things like gravity, we accept this PFP without question.
After all, it seems to make good sense. Take the Sun,
for instance. The Sun as a fuser radiates a tremendous
amount of energy into space. Still, the vast majority of
the volatile materials that make up the Sun is contained
within the surface by gravity. If it weren't for gravity, all
that material would leave the Sun, very quickly. But
gravity doesn't let that happen.

And we are led to believe that our great Sun (any star
in fact) is the source of both the forces: The force that
pushes up and outward, and the force of gravity that
contains that force. Now one might begin to question:
How does the Sun do that?

One looks to science to find Newton, Einstein, theories
that describe the effects of gravity very well, unproved
axioms, one of which i described above--the PFP, other
oddities like "gravitons"--that are yet to be discovered
(maybe because they're not there at all?), absolutely no
viable quantum theory of gravity, and little or nothing at
all as to what actually *causes* gravity. If gravitons are
ever found, science will still have to come up with "how
do they do it?" Do the rabid little tranfer particles reach
up out of matter to "grab" and hold other matter down?

Sometimes it begins to make more sense that the two
main forces at work to keep a star intact are opposing
forces coming from different directions, that the Sun is
not the source of both forces, but just the one that is
trying to get out and away. Maybe the making of a star
is similar to the making of a snowball. A snowball does
not make itself. The snow does not draw together into
a ball unless one's hands push in on the snow to form a
ball shape. So maybe the two main opposing forces of
the Sun are 1) the energy and matter within the Sun
that are being forced outward by the fusion processes
at the core, and 2) something pushing in on the Sun
much like your hands push in on the snowball.

So what is this "something pushing in"?

Newton, scientifically and publicly admitted that he did
not know what the source of gravity is. In a private
letter to a friend, though, he is said to have stated that
the puzzle was so perplexing that "God must cause
gravity".

For most of his life, Einstein evidently thought pretty
much the same thing as Newton, that God caused the
force of gravity. Now, Einstein was purportedly an
atheist, but i would guess he was more of an agnostic.
His statement about God not playing dice with the
Universe is enough to show this. He didn't really write
much about what causes gravity until shortly before he
died. And it wasn't about God causing gravity. Still,
when you first read his 15th edition of _Relativity_, and
you get to the part about the "problem of space", you
might do like most have done and chalk it off to the
ramblings of an old man.

I did.

Then i subscribed to alt.astronomy.

Well, i've talked pretty long in this post, so that's plenty
for now. Welcome to the newsgroup, Timberwoof, and
if you'd like to hear more about the source of gravity,
just ask "oc" (for "old coot"). He's usually pretty close
by. Here's his website...

http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

oc Balloon back end is very flexible it wiggles this way and that. When
curved to the right looking at the balloon going away from you the
balloon goes left and visa versa. oc that bend gets pressure,not as
great as the closed end but enough pressure to create change of
direction. If open end stayed straight so would the rest go straight.
Now i'm going to throw in my kicker. Not a thought but reality. I know
away to move the rocket ship with only an inside(Internal force) Like
picking yourself up by your boot strings or suspenders. Very close to
kicking yourself to get you moving. Reality is mother nature showed me
she can do it. Tell you the secret on the 4th The spaceship is
completely closed and has no propulsion . Can you figure it out? You
can even buy it as a unit and its fun.and not man made that's a clue
Bert

On Jul 3, 7:06*am, oldcoot wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:59*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

One side of the sail is pulling (the outside) and inside
the sail(facing the wind) is pushing. *Are push and pull equal here? Are
they not going in the same direction?

The 'pull' force is entirely a pseudo or fictitious force, i.e.,
'suction'. It's the same as the much-touted Bernoulli effect above an
aircraft wing "pulling" the wing up. The *real* force is the push of
the wind against the sail and the push of the airstream against the
bottom of the plane's wing. In both cases, Newton explains the cause,
Bernoulli describes the (perceived) effect.


Thing is though, whether push or pull, all forces on the micro level
are actions at a distance.

Double-A

Timber that is a cheap shot. I read a lot and I'm thinking good physics
all the time. you just don't appreciate my out of the box thoughts so I
say shame on you. bert