« on: 28/11/2021 17:35:08 »
I can't think of any propulsion system that doesn't consume fuel of some sort, and conserve momentum.If you can define a closed system, then yes, the momentum of that system will be conserved. Most rockets are not considered closed systems.
The definition of a fool is someone who doesn't understand newtonian physics. If you are burning fuel, you must be producing thrust, so you must be acceleratingAlan, what is your purpose in obfuscating the physics of the equivalence principle? This [was] a mainstream thread and you're pushing very wrong physics in it. Newtonian physics does not conclude that thrust must result from the consumption of fuel, as BC has pointed out.
This is a thread about the EP, and to be equivalent, you must compare apples to apples, and your comparison of apples to oranges only serves to obfuscate. If you want to compare a rocket in space consuming fuel to accelerate at a constant proper 1G, then you need to compare it equivalently. So if you want to compare to a rocket in a vacuum at the surface of Earth consuming fuel to accelerate at a constant proper 1G. The one on Earth will not undergo any coordinate acceleration (as measured by a distant inertial observer) and the occupants of both rockets will be unable to tell via any local test which is which.
I said this as much in my first reply to you, which I notice you ignored. Why do your posts belong here? Why shouldn't I move all this nonsense to the lighter side?
BC, you're allowing yourself to be led by the nose by Alan. Your post about certain vehicles with propulsion at one end or the other is entirely irrelevant to the equivalence principle. If you want to take apart Alan's assertions, keep it to the parts that are relevant to the topic.
The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf