Quote:
he said it would appear to be non-zero


that doesnt sound like he is agreeing with you , in fact it
sounds alot more like he can read formulas better that you.

Quote:
kirbygillis stopped by to make fun of you, which I assume means (s)he disagrees with you

So all three who've bothered to post vis-a-vis your claims agree that basic physics makes your engine impossible. None were not willing to take your claims vis-a-vis at face value...


kirbygillis was correcting the thing I missed when I used
seconds istead of hours in light speed.

ok , I made 1 mistake , but I corrected it in the next post below it , so anyway that makes it about
50 to 1 in my favor.

Quote:
kallog agrees with me that momentum of a closed system is conserved


I agree that momentum is conserved also , but its not like Im agreeing with you , as that
is something that makes sence.

yes the momentum is conserved in the moving pipe itself.
nothing left the pipe.

Quote:
Actually, the speed of sound is neither a constant, nor is it just the "speed that sound can travel at". The speed of sound varies with the physical makeup of the medium and its temperature.


so does g 9.8m/s^2
but we use it as a constant --- ACTUALY---
whats your point other than nic picking.

if you will notice everything you are refering to is
about rocket engines , im not using a rocket engine.

so all your links to rocket engines are null.

a rocket engine uses a nozzle to direct the thrust


AFTER IT PASSES INTO THE NOZZLE...

so just like the bottle rocket does not have a nozzle
after the thrust passes the lip of the bottle , my pipe
and tank anology also does not have a nozzle it
just has a 1 inch sq area tube , why do you keep insisting on using nozzles when there isnt a nozzle?

think of it as a smaller pipe that has a hole in it.

Quote:
Wrong again - nozzles harness the expansion of the compressed gas once they leave the tank, regardless of the source of that pressure.


keep reading further down it also says that it directs the gasses in a direction.

Quote:
Wrong again - nozzles harness the expansion of the compressed gas once they leave the tank, regardless of the source of that pressure. The fact you have compressed air, while rockets have fire to compress their air, doesn't change the fact that both will produce pressurized streams of air that can act against that nozzle - or in your example, will be wasted due to the lack of a nozzle.


I never said it had a nozzle , you did.
in fact at first you acknowledged it was just a tube.
so ...WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TUBE?

then you acted as if it had a nozzle from that point
on , but theres no nozzle.

you included a formula to compute the nozzle thrust
and disreguarded the only thing that actually was there
the tube.

theres is no nozzle.

ok , I want to allow the air to expand as it wants...
I dont want the air to be directed towards the rear as you seem to want it to.

I dont want a nozzle , nope no nozzle , none.

OK...no nozzle.

now what , we didnt install a nozzle.

will the pipe move?

is like saying will the bottle rocket go anywhere.

I say it will , what do you say it will do .

go towards the ground instead.

that video was photoshopped wasnt it?
dang conspirators.

they shouldnt promote such realism on the internet.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.