|
|
     
. . .
What about thrust in vacuum This article seems less than scientific. Thrust should be designated as a form of "energy". The question that should be explicitly answered is the energy "momentum" or can it be properly measured as kinetic energy. In vacuum of space navigation using the kinetic energy formulation "1/2vmv" will not accurately predict the outcome a given thrust will produce. Nor will it accurately predict what force is required to produce that thrust. Thrust proves momentum is the only form of real energy. If the article is to be defended you should have the credible testimony of a physicist stating that thrust applied in outer space has performance that is consistent with the kinetic energy theorem. You should also note that the article makes no mention of the thrusters used to navigate in vacuum. Simple question the article should be able to answer: If I throw 1 unit of mass moving 1,000 miles per hour out one side of my spaceship, and simultaneously 1,000 units of mass going 1 mph out the other side. Does the spaceship turn? If it doesn't how can kinetic energy be considered "real energy" when I have thrown a thousand times "more energy" one way than the other? Draft Physics (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I made this video publicly disclosing my reasoning. Neither thrust (a force) nor momentum is energy. Different units of measurement. In your thought experiment it takes much more energy to get the 1 unit of mass moving at 1,000 units of velocity than it takes to get 1,000 units of mass moving one unit of velocity. The article does discuss rocketry, briefly, noting its similarity to jet propulsion. There probably is room for more discussion of the rocket thrust equation, etc, but we would need to cite reliable sources, not thought experiments. VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I responded with this counter argument and made the following video. "Neither thrust (a force) nor momentum is energy" what's your Authority for that opinion? Quoting Newton "twice the force equals twice the movement" you're claiming that movement isn't energy? "it takes much more energy to get the 1 unit of mass moving at 1,000 units of velocity than it takes to get 1,000 units of mass moving one unit of velocity." what's your Authority for that statement. And how is it consistent with Newton's third law? The same explosion makes the bullet have more "energy" than the gun recoil? "The article does discuss rocketry, briefly, noting its similarity to jet propulsion." only in the context of atmospheric or gravitational drag. "There probably is room for more discussion of the rocket thrust equation." The rocket equation is only relevant in circumstances where fuel has substantial Mass... It would have little use if you were using a nuclear fuel. "we would need to cite reliable sources, not thought experiments." Isaac Newton should be considered a reliable source, in his second law he explicitly stated "twice the force twice the movement." In my opinion good science requires thought experiments. As stated the page should be able to answer the question...If I throw 1 unit of mass moving 1,000 miles per hour out one side of my spaceship, and simultaneously 1,000 units of mass going 1 mph out the other side. Does the spaceship turn? Can you answer the question? More precisely will you answer the question and demonstrate you know what you're talking about. Draft Physics (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The censoring gatekeeper responds with: If you have questions about basic physics like force vs momentum vs kinetic energy, you can ask them at the reference desk. The presence of drag is what differentiates thrust in space from thrust in an atmosphere or other medium. No I was talking about the thrust equation, not the rocket equation. See Rocket engine nozzle. Nuclear engines still have significant mass flow rate though; they're just more efficient than chemical rockets. See WP:RELIABLE regarding sources and "thought experiments". Newton is a reliable source for what Newton said, not on modern day physics. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) My reply: Thanks for the reply. The accusation is that thrust is entirely controlled by momentum, and that for example, the kinetic energy theorem would crash you on the moon rather than land you on the moon. If you have questions about basic physics like force vs momentum vs kinetic energy, you can ask them at the reference desk. I'm making the direct accusation that your Wikipedia page is not good science. It is superficial, vague and slanders Isaac Newton. Show me the experiment where it takes 25 the energy to spin an object five times as fast. Newton is a reliable source for what Newton said, not on modern day physics. The first sentence of the wiki page sites Newton's third law. The third law was written describing momentum not kinetic energy. Newton was not a leibnizian. Modern physics says a bullet has 2,000j while the gun recoil is only 2j, how is that consistent with the third law? If I shot the bullet out one side of my ship and allowed a gun recoil to shoot out the other would the ship turn? This is the third time I've asked the question? The Wiki page should provide the answer to the question. The fact is little things going fast is not more "thrust" than big things going slow and the Wiki page should be clear on that. Draft Physics (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The argument is closed, presumably by VQuakr with the statement "This isn't the place to promote fringe theories." I post a new subject Isaac Newton wasn't a fringe scientist The facts regarding how thrust works prove Newton knew what he was talking about. He understood force to be the same as momentum and he certainly would have called both "energy" if the word had been invented. You are defending leibnizian mechanics and are shamefully putting that nonsense in Newton's mouth. Silencing me will not hide your crimes against the truth and science. This statement is deleted, again presumably by VQuakr He then post this on my account "talk" page: Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Thrust for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) I reply with: Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Thrust for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; I've made specific claims defending Newtonian mechanics... newton is very well sourced. The simple fact is the article you have posted is a discredit to science. And the actual history of understanding. they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you can't even talk on the talk pages you're just showing Wikipedia to be a sham. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. I have accusations I don't have questions. The fact is you have no regard for the truth. And your behavior is on the record. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Vague gibberish used to afford you the right to bail out of any conversation you can't win. I ask you to Please refrain from abusing the guidelines to propagandize your religious ideology by censoring needed discussion. Draft Physics (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) from 8 years ago [1] Wikipedia editors: just petty fascist propagandizing control freaks[1] Space: A field of positions ... Cannot be created or destroyed Force: Elements of motion... Bits of speed of light/force momentum ... Fixed Elemental Force Mass Matter: Bits of mass that have no Elemental motion... To move they must be continually pushed by force. Energy: A quantity of force ... Only measurable as a differential... May be in the form of free Force or Force pushing matter. Momentum: A quantity of energy/ force/ weight/ Weight: Just a measure of momentum / pressure Pressure: An amount of force measured as a differential Work: The action of a Force exchange ... Complete or incomplete Time: A consequence of the speed of force not being instantaneous. The universe has slowness Interaction: An event caused by the meeting of force with an opposing velocity direction vector. Electricity: The migration of force through conductive atoms... Electrons are the force carriers. Force carrier: An electron or proton being pushed by a force differential... Larger objects can carry that differential. Magnetism: A polarized pattern of force that can affect, and is produced by polarized objects. Light: Bits of electron Force that arrive at an atomic surface with a specific pattern/spread and frequency. |
|