Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: "Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:58:50 -0500
<matt271829-news@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140892975.844438.34460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Spaceman wrote:
You have done it again,
You have assumed a constant that does nto exist
as a reality.
Please answer
What is e standing for in reality to make it constant?
And why would you use a constant that has no
representation in reality?
As I understand it, e is the speed that the propellant shoots out of
the back end of the rocket, measured relative to the rocket. What's the
problem with that?
Such (the speed propellant shoots out at) is not a constant.
It has acceleration and also has a top speed and an end speed of
0 after it stops.
So it is wrong simple as that.
and...It is not a constant at all.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: T Wake
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- References:
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- From: matt271829-news
- Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- Prev by Date: Re: Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 16: Power Laws vs sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
- Next by Date: Re: Plastic Light
- Previous by thread: Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- Next by thread: Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading