Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Is emission-less propulsion possible? I believe it is... [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(102,477 posts)73. Here, I think, is the fundamental error - whether ChatGPT's or yours, I can't tell from the formatting
"However, since the bullets would lose energy due to sound and heat, not all their momentum would be transferred. For simplicity, let's assume 90% of the momentum is transferred back."
No, that's not how momentum works. It's always conserved. Kinetic energy can be lost in interactions, but the overall momentum of the whole system is always constant. That's the fundamental physics. Assuming you can just make some of it disappear is just not allowed (which is why there's so much suspicion of the "drives" mentioned elsewhere in the thread).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I really hope this is all tongue-in-cheek. If so, that's one for you! Just in case...
NCIndie
Dec 2023
#5
Ok... please read a little farther down the post please... There is no plan for a shotgun based propulsion design...
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#7
I'm not an AI robot and your challenge was based on scientific inquiry. I responded in kind...
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#11
I think you're missing the point... none of those are useful for extended space travel... or can reach similar speeds
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#4
This isn't about the energy required to run it.. that's still a problem... for a bit... we first have to see....
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#8
I built this idea fighting A for the past year... lol... so thank you I do appreciate skepticism. It built this idea.
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#12
That is precisely why I am here... I have had my ass handed to me so many times on this forum.... LOL
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#14
You're going to build a car with zero carbon footprint because of renewables+nuclear?
NCIndie
Dec 2023
#19
Here, I think, is the fundamental error - whether ChatGPT's or yours, I can't tell from the formatting
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2023
#73
OK, some numbers for position (Python? Why Python? This is a physics problem, not a numerical procedure)
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2023
#81
Can you try to write better, please? Your questions, or messages, are obscured by your style.
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2023
#84
The apparent paradox arises from a simplified view of the situation and is resolved when considering the full complexity
mikelewis
Dec 2023
#33
This part of the argument is where chatgpt is completely botching the physics.
Salviati
Dec 2023
#37
I wouldn't trust ChatGPT to count my toes accurately. It wasn't written to do that.
OKIsItJustMe
Dec 2023
#41
"They're trying to move mass with electrons... they need to move mass with mass"
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 2023
#55
Not logic. "view count" is not equal to "copy-paste" nor equal to "don't understand the math"
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 2023
#62
If you want to be taken seriously, and you clearly do, then don't be childish. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 2023
#65