Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83454
  • *Latest: pinotto

  • *Total Posts: 512785
  • *Total Topics: 15260
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 6
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours  (Read 48768 times)

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8368
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #60 on: August 05, 2015, 04:44:25 AM »
Hey farmhand

You have to remained focused and not get distracted by non-issues and the concept of inertia as I said relies on the fact that something must fundamentally act on nothing.





People are creating BS circumstances to justify the fact they do not or cannot answer the fundamental question which is ... inertia is based on the observation that something is somehow acting on nothing. Something cannot resist the motion of something else without a frame of reference which relates to a tangible force on some level and in the case of inertia there is none.@Bill
 


@Bill

So how do you think this relates to the fact Inertia implies something must act on nothing Bill?. Your post is a non-issue and it is completely irrelevant because if you were actually paying attention you would know I said "space" not referring to low orbit which is a BS argument at best. So let's suppose it is in deep space billions of miles from nowhere what then Bill?. Just answer the question.... do you believe something can act on nothing or not?. That is the question not BS circumstances which have no real relation to the real question. A simple yes or no would be more than sufficient Bill.




AC

It is totally relevant because, even in deep space as in your new example, nothing is at rest.  There will be a velocity and therefore, inertia.

(Provided, of course, that your spring has mass) See?  Relevant.  Please try to keep up with your own thought experiment.  You are the one that created the conditions for your example.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #61 on: August 05, 2015, 05:07:08 AM »
@Bill


I understand your point bill I really do however again you have completely avoided the fundamental question I am asking. Why we could suppose that our buckets and spring are in the middle of a wormhole being attacked by fairies riding unicorns however this does distract from the fundamental question you do not seem to want to answer.


Here is the question Bill, the only question that matters in this whole conversation.... get ready Bill here it is.


*****Do you or do you not agree that in my example Inertia directly implies that something must act on nothing because there is nothing to act on?.*****


Simple question Bill, not all that complicated and I am not sure how I could possibly make it more clear to you that this is the only question I am interested in as well as your answer.... yes or no?.


AC

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8368
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #62 on: August 05, 2015, 05:36:21 AM »
@Bill


I understand your point bill I really do however again you have completely avoided the fundamental question I am asking. Why we could suppose that our buckets and spring are in the middle of a wormhole being attacked by fairies riding unicorns however this does distract from the fundamental question you do not seem to want to answer.


Here is the question Bill, the only question that matters in this whole conversation.... get ready Bill here it is.


*****Do you or do you not agree that in my example Inertia directly implies that something must act on nothing because there is nothing to act on?.*****


Simple question Bill, not all that complicated and I am not sure how I could possibly make it more clear to you that this is the only question I am interested in as well as your answer.... yes or no?.


AC

No, I do not agree.  You even said yourself in your example that bucket A pushed against bucket B and visa versa.  In your example, you do not even need a bucket B.  Simply release the compressed spring (In deep space...whatever) and, if you set a datum point of the position of bucket A and the spring prior to the release, both will move away from each other in opposite directions.  The spring, which has less mass than bucket A will of course move faster and further from your datum point than bucket A...but...both will move.

This was proven on space walks on various missions but none more than those on the Shuttle.  If an astronaut pushed himself off away from the shuttle, both moved in opposite directions.  (I know I am back to the orbital example but bare with me)  The astronaut moved a lot more than the shuttle even though both were weightless, they both still had mass and the shuttle movement was barely perceptible but it was there as it was measurable.

So, the shuttle is bucket A, the astronaut and his arms are your coiled spring, and they both moved away from each other even though all they had to push against was the mass of each other.  NASA said this confirmed Newton.


Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #62 on: August 05, 2015, 05:36:21 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline oscillipoint

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #63 on: August 05, 2015, 10:40:41 PM »
@Bill
If we are to assume as currently accepted science suggests, that space has no structure, then why does light supposedly have a defined top speed?  Why not an unrestrained speed?

Perhaps the answer could be that just as the speed of light in a substance is restrained/resisted through the unavoidable process of absorption and re-emission, the vacuum also imposes unavoidable conditions on the passage of light.

Surely we aren't supposed to assume that photons cognitively decide on their own top speed?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2015, 04:06:10 PM by oscillipoint »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #64 on: August 05, 2015, 11:51:31 PM »
@Bill
Your not getting this but that's fine because it took a long time for me to get it as well.
 
Imagine you are in space with the space station and you push away from it. You move in one direction and the space station because it is very massive moves a little in the opposite direction. This is very intuitive and easy to understand however if the space station did not have the property we call Inertia then when you pushed on it it would move away from you however you would not move at all. If the space station did not have the property of inertia then when you went to push on it you would feel basically no pressure on your hands as if you were not pushing on anything.
 
When an object is resisting a change in motion in space where there is no friction to confuse matters we can see the object has literally nothing to act on in order to resist your pushing or a change in motion other that itself. It is as if the object has attached itself to the fabric of space in some way to resist any change in motion. The real issue here is common sense and normality when we forget to challenge things which are so normal to us we take them completely for granted.
 
My insight came in the way of a tennis ball hanging from some fishing line in my garage which serves as a marker when I park my truck. I saw it one day and thought... that ball is weightless right now because the line has counteracted the force of gravity. So I poked it and thought if it is weightless but still has mass and there is no real friction present then why does it resist my pushing?. It can't be the string, it isn't the air so how can an object resist a change in motion when it has nothing to act on to counteract the force I have applied to it. The force we call Inertia must act internally on every particle of what we call an object in some way resisting all changes in motion. So really when we say Oh that's just Inertia what we are really saying is... I believe that object has the capacity to act on itself or in effect nothing at all.
 
My insight was that Inertia is not normal, Inertia implies that the internal matter of an object has the capacity to hold or grab on to what we consider to be an empty space to resist a change in motion. You have to ask the question how can it resist if the space around it is empty... resist against what?. Inertia imples matter has the ability to interact with what we consider empty space thus we come full circle back to the topic at hand and impossible rocket drives.
 
 
AC
 
 
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #64 on: August 05, 2015, 11:51:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1584
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2015, 12:51:12 AM »
So does anyone agree the object in the video I linked is a bird (pigeon) with a halo caused by the sun/camera ? That close "bird" in the stills is only in about 4 or 5 frames of the original video clip, not that it means much but I think the people filming actually thought they were seeing orbs of some kind, even the people not filming the video. I did not shoot the video, I just found it on you tube and had a closer look. Maybe the other people on the scene were looking though other camera's.

How do all the birds have these light halo's ? They seem very bright like lights. I've never seen that, it must simply be the light and the effects of the digital zoom on the video camera or something. Digital zoom does put halo's on lights. Must be that, I'll try to do it if I ever see any birds up high like that. The halo's must have been created by the camera.

Or is it as one person suggested to me that they are actually ufo's that look like birds ?  :) haha I think that person was joking. Vulcan Warbirds or something.

..

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2015, 02:01:29 AM »
@Bill
Your not getting this but that's fine because it took a long time for me to get it as well.
 
Imagine you are in space with the space station and you push away from it. You move in one direction and the space station because it is very massive moves a little in the opposite direction. This is very intuitive and easy to understand however if the space station did not have the property we call Inertia then when you pushed on it it would move away from you however you would not move at all.
And why wouldn't you move?  Inertia establishes acceleration is proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass.  If there were no property of inertia then mass would not factor into the force versus acceleration relationship. 
Quote
If the space station did not have the property of inertia then when you went to push on it you would feel basically no pressure on your hands as if you were not pushing on anything.
You are conflating Newton's Third Law with inertia.  If N3 still applied but there were no such thing as inertia then you would still feel reaction force.  The acceleration of each object relative to a fixed frame would no longer be inversely proportional to the mass of each object.
Quote

When an object is resisting a change in motion in space where there is no friction to confuse matters we can see the object has literally nothing to act on in order to resist your pushing or a change in motion other that itself. It is as if the object has attached itself to the fabric of space in some way to resist any change in motion. The real issue here is common sense and normality when we forget to challenge things which are so normal to us we take them completely for granted.
 
My insight came in the way of a tennis ball hanging from some fishing line in my garage which serves as a marker when I park my truck. I saw it one day and thought... that ball is weightless right now because the line has counteracted the force of gravity. So I poked it and thought if it is weightless but still has mass and there is no real friction present then why does it resist my pushing?. It can't be the string, it isn't the air so how can an object resist a change in motion when it has nothing to act on to counteract the force I have applied to it. The force we call Inertia must act internally on every particle of what we call an object in some way resisting all changes in motion. So really when we say Oh that's just Inertia what we are really saying is... I believe that object has the capacity to act on itself or in effect nothing at all.
Inertia is not a force.  Inertia is a relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.  Inertia is the name we give to that consistently observed relationship.
Quote

My insight was that Inertia is not normal, Inertia implies that the internal matter of an object has the capacity to hold or grab on to what we consider to be an empty space to resist a change in motion. You have to ask the question how can it resist if the space around it is empty... resist against what?. Inertia imples matter has the ability to interact with what we consider empty space thus we come full circle back to the topic at hand and impossible rocket drives.
 
 
AC
The problem with the E/M drive is that the observed behavior of mass, time, and distance is that in any given frame of reference, the product of mass and distance covered per unit time does not change.  That is conservation of momentum.  It is an even more fundamental observation than conservation of energy.  The idea of the E/M drive is that if E/M energy bounces back and forth in a container of a certain shape that the container and the E/M energy inside of it can all accelerate as observed from an external frame of reference.  Shawyer insists that does not constitute a violation of conservation of momentum.  I, like many others beg to differ.  Solving the math inside the can is complicated, ugly stuff.  But it is very difficult to argue the view from outside the can:  acceleration in one direction can which amounts to a change in momentum can occur without a complementary change in momentum of something else such that the net sum remains constant.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2015, 02:01:29 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8368
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2015, 05:34:26 AM »
@Bill
Your not getting this but that's fine because it took a long time for me to get it as well.
 
Imagine you are in space with the space station and you push away from it. You move in one direction and the space station because it is very massive moves a little in the opposite direction. This is very intuitive and easy to understand however if the space station did not have the property we call Inertia then when you pushed on it it would move away from you however you would not move at all. If the space station did not have the property of inertia then when you went to push on it you would feel basically no pressure on your hands as if you were not pushing on anything.
 
When an object is resisting a change in motion in space where there is no friction to confuse matters we can see the object has literally nothing to act on in order to resist your pushing or a change in motion other that itself. It is as if the object has attached itself to the fabric of space in some way to resist any change in motion. The real issue here is common sense and normality when we forget to challenge things which are so normal to us we take them completely for granted.
 
My insight came in the way of a tennis ball hanging from some fishing line in my garage which serves as a marker when I park my truck. I saw it one day and thought... that ball is weightless right now because the line has counteracted the force of gravity. So I poked it and thought if it is weightless but still has mass and there is no real friction present then why does it resist my pushing?. It can't be the string, it isn't the air so how can an object resist a change in motion when it has nothing to act on to counteract the force I have applied to it. The force we call Inertia must act internally on every particle of what we call an object in some way resisting all changes in motion. So really when we say Oh that's just Inertia what we are really saying is... I believe that object has the capacity to act on itself or in effect nothing at all.
 
My insight was that Inertia is not normal, Inertia implies that the internal matter of an object has the capacity to hold or grab on to what we consider to be an empty space to resist a change in motion. You have to ask the question how can it resist if the space around it is empty... resist against what?. Inertia imples matter has the ability to interact with what we consider empty space thus we come full circle back to the topic at hand and impossible rocket drives.
 
 
AC

AC:

I actually think that I do get it.  Mark explained it much better than I could in his post above.  In my readings about the space program, I found it interesting to learn that even when weightless in deep space or in orbit, an object still has mass.  No weight, but mass.  It is one of the properties of mass that we are speaking about here.  It is not pushing off against nothing, it is pushing off against the mass of another object in your example.  That other object does not have to connect to anything in the fabric of space, it still resists movement as Newton said and therefore can be pushed off against.  My shuttle example was extreme due to the huge difference in mass but, there was still movement of both the astronaut and the shuttle.
Gravity, as much as is known about it, is accepted as another aspect of mass.  The more massive an object is, the larger its gravitational field.

I am not arguing about this as I am no astrophysicist.  As I said, Mark has explained it better than I could.  I do read a lot and one of my favorite topics is books about the space program.  At this moment, I am listening to the audiobook version of "Failure Is Not An Option", by Gene Krantz, NASA flight controller from the days of Mercury, through the moon landings.  (Including, of course, Apollo 13)  I am about 1/2 through it and I highly recommend it as it is a great book.

Bill

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2015, 01:37:58 PM »
It's still a quagmire at this point however what I saw was a closed system which can produce a propulsive force and makes absolutely no sound. If the device in question does work then I can only think that it is directly related to what I saw.


AC

For one, the EmDrive isn't a closed system.  It expels the plasma out the back of the ship for thrust (see snapshot below).  The snapshot was taken from this video titled, "NASA Tests 'Impossible' Engine, Finds Out It's Really Fast".  And for two, a propulsive force utilizing the potential between a vacuum and the atmospheric pressure wouldn't make any sound in an open system either (sound doesn't travel in a vacuum).


Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2015, 01:37:58 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2015, 02:33:09 PM »
Fundamentally I cannot see how a craft could accelerate and turn at such extreme rates without negating inertia in some way. Which would lead me to speculate it is a field related phenomena however it must also act on matter on the most fundamental level in order to negate inertia.

Yes, but more specifically it has to do with phase displacement.  For more information, see Rhythmodynamics of Nature.

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2015, 02:52:48 PM »
My ex g/f deleted all of my research papers and I can't find the publications on the internet that may be related to this phenomenon.  If my memory serves me correctly, the publications were referenced in the papers written by Ioannis Xydous which were titled, "the secrets of the electron-positron pairs".  It should be fairly easy to find once I decide to search for it.

Gravock

Ok, I found one of the publications related to this phenomenon.  It's called the Rhythmodynamics of Nature (link posted in previous post).  This is an excellent read.

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2015, 02:52:48 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2015, 02:59:01 PM »
@Bill
Quote
I actually think that I do get it.  Mark explained it much better than I could in his post above.  In my readings about the space program, I found it interesting to learn that even when weightless in deep space or in orbit, an object still has mass.  No weight, but mass.  It is one of the properties of mass that we are speaking about here.  It is not pushing off against nothing, it is pushing off against the mass of another object in your example.  That other object does not have to connect to anything in the fabric of space, it still resists movement as Newton said and therefore can be pushed off against.  My shuttle example was extreme due to the huge difference in mass but, there was still movement of both the astronaut and the shuttle.




I think you may have explained the problem better than I have.


An object having mass but no weight cannot move unless acted upon by a tangible force. This object also has the property of inertia which opposes all changes in motion which we call an acceleration.


In our example a tangible force (legs, arms or springs) pushes two objects apart accelerating them outward away from one another. At the same time a force is resisting this outward acceleration which must mean this force is acting inwards. If this force is acting inward towards the center of the two objects to resist the acceleration outward then in order to "resist" it must be acting on something else.


Yes the two objects are acting on themselves in order to accelerate outward but there is also inertia acting inwards to resist the acceleration outward. If inertia is acting inwards to resist the acceleration outwards then what is it acting on to act inward? Itself?






Quote
It is not pushing off against nothing, it is pushing off against the mass of another object in your example.


It cannot push off of another mass outward unless the other mass resists the change in motion with a force acting inward... how does this other mass resist when it is free floating in space?. There must be a tangible force present acting inward to resist the acceleration outward.




AC

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2015, 03:04:45 PM »
Yes, but more specifically it has to do with phase displacement.  For more information, see Rhythmodynamics of Nature.

Gravock
In the boat example: momentum is conserved by ejecting propellant in the form of the rocks.  When the boaters run out of rocks they lose their ability to change the boat's velocity.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2015, 03:15:08 PM »
In the boat example: momentum is conserved by ejecting propellant in the form of the rocks.  When the boaters run out of rocks they lose their ability to change the boat's velocity.

I wasn't referring to conservation of momentum.  The boat example is in reference to phase displacement and motion without inertia or resistance.  In other words, there is no resistance or external force acting on the boat to give it a net motion.

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2015, 03:27:36 PM »

It cannot push off of another mass unless the other mass resists the change in motion... how does this other mass resist when it is free floating in space?.


AC

According to RD (Rhytmodynamics), there is no motion by inertia, but there‚Äôs illusion of it.  The motion by inertia is maintained by the presence of phase displacement, proceeds with constant speed and in a state of inner quiescence (synchronicity). If phase displacement is eliminated, the motion stops.

Gravock

 

OneLink