Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: Pirate88179 on July 29, 2015, 07:12:10 AM

Title: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 29, 2015, 07:12:10 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html)




EM drive tests appear to show that it may actually work.



"The drive, which has been likened to Star Trek’s (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11365243/Scientists-take-first-step-towards-Star-Trek-transporter.html) Impulse Drive, has left scientists scratching their heads because it defies one of the fundamental concepts of physics – the conservation of momentum – which states that if something is propelled forward, something must be pushed in the opposite direction. So the forces inside the chamber should cancel each other out."


If this is true, it could be a huge step forward in space travel.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 29, 2015, 07:51:41 AM
It is a terribly written article.  The only new information is that some unspecified tests were conducted in Dresden.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 29, 2015, 08:27:42 AM
do you know how is this working?

technicals details?

I know how it's working and I posted most of the technical details on this site nearly 5 years ago.  What they're showing to the public is only a small portion of the device.  What is being shown is nothing more than a modified cathode ray tube.  Seek and you shall find.  Also note, the technical details can almost be found in your username of "madama".  What a coincidence!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 29, 2015, 09:05:55 AM
do you know how is this working?

technicals details?
It is my position that Shawyer is wrong.  This is what Shawyer claims:  E/M waves bouncing around a metal can that uses a near vacuum dielectric has E/M wavefronts that propagate close to the speed of light.  When those wavefronts hit a metal wall, Faraday induction occurs resulting in reflections.  Shawyer claims that by tapering the can, the net force of the reflections in one direction along the central axis will be different than in the other, giving rise to a net accelerating force parallel to the central axis.  Various SMEs who have examined his math in detail assert that he misaccounts for the forces on the tapers and so his idea is one of GIGO.  NASA tests should be complete this year that competently isolate sources of experimental error to see once and for all if there is something to Shawyer's claims or not. 

Personally, I chalk Shawyer's ideas up to something that belongs in the Museum of Unworkable Devices.  I think his idea is akin to propelling something by placing a laser in a cavity with a highly reflective mirror at one end and a highly absorbant material at the other.  Or to put it another way:  a fan in a sailboat blowing on the sailboat's sail.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 29, 2015, 09:23:02 AM
It is my position that Shawyer is wrong.  This is what Shawyer claims:  E/M waves bouncing around a metal can that uses a near vacuum dielectric has E/M wavefronts that propagate close to the speed of light.  When those wavefronts hit a metal wall, Faraday induction occurs resulting in reflections.  Shawyer claims that by tapering the can, the net force of the reflections in one direction along the central axis will be different than in the other, giving rise to a net accelerating force parallel to the central axis.  Various SMEs who have examined his math in detail assert that he misaccounts for the forces on the tapers and so his idea is one of GIGO.

I agree with your analysis above.  I must say though, the effect does have something to do with the vacuum.  This leads to questions, such as do they even have the slightest idea to what is going on, or is it more misdirection for the general public?

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 29, 2015, 11:35:05 AM
Personally, I chalk Shawyer's ideas up to something that belongs in the Museum of Unworkable Devices.  I think his idea is akin to propelling something by placing a laser in a cavity with a highly reflective mirror at one end and a highly absorbant material at the other.  Or to put it another way:  a fan in a sailboat blowing on the sailboat's sail.

Mythbusters Successfully Blew Their Own Sail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo)

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: telecom on July 29, 2015, 12:52:02 PM
Mythbusters Successfully Blew Their Own Sail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo)

Gravock

How does this work?
Probably due to a mass of the boat much bigger than the mass of the expelled air...
Interesting - can greatly increase the efficiency of the jet engine!
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 29, 2015, 01:09:59 PM
How does this work?
Probably due to a mass of the boat much bigger than the mass of the expelled air...
Interesting - can greatly increase the efficiency of the jet engine!

It's more than likely due to a combination of phenomenon.  I say there's a potential difference in the air pressure that is at play.  I won't need to expand on this if Madame or someone else reports back with the technical details I posted 5 years ago. 

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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 29, 2015, 02:08:24 PM
It's more than likely due to a combination of phenomenon.

Gravock

In addition to the potential difference in air pressure, angular momentum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H98BgRzpOM) is at play also.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: telecom on July 29, 2015, 05:36:26 PM
its is quite obvious that there is some pressure difference on the sale.
What is not obvious, is why it manages to go forward, even though it is supposed to jerk backward  due to the reaction of the boat.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 29, 2015, 06:05:22 PM
I agree with your analysis above.  I must say though, the effect does have something to do with the vacuum.  This leads to questions, such as do they even have the slightest idea to what is going on, or is it more misdirection for the general public?

Gravock
The QV really doesn't enter into the claims as Shawyer makes them.  Special relativity does though.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Paul-R on July 29, 2015, 06:23:44 PM
I may be wrong but I am fairly sure I read that the actual thrust from one of the devices under discussion was measured as a few hundred millinewtons. It would take several weeks to accelerate a bicycle from 5 mph to 10 mph.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: synchro1 on July 29, 2015, 07:56:05 PM
Brown-Biefield effect. There's a thrust in a capacitor toward the negative charge plate too. The plasma produces a magnetic field.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 30, 2015, 01:36:24 AM
I may be wrong but I am fairly sure I read that the actual thrust from one of the devices under discussion was measured as a few hundred millinewtons. It would take several weeks to accelerate a bicycle from 5 mph to 10 mph.
Shawyer claims that using superconductors the Q of the cavity can be greatly increased (it can) and the specific thrust will also then increase (0*N = 0).
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 30, 2015, 03:16:52 AM
It is a terribly written article.  The only new information is that some unspecified tests were conducted in Dresden.

Yes, I was not too impressed with the way it was written either.  At some point in the article, a guy is quoted saying something like...well...we can not really confirm nor deny if it works from these tests...which does not really jive with the whole upsetting of the laws of conservation of energy thing.

I just copied and pasted the headline from the article for the topic title but really...that headline is a little too optimistic at this point.  I really hope it does work and, I hope that the tests are done correctly and verified by others.  Then, we might really have something.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 30, 2015, 05:40:21 AM
Yes, I was not too impressed with the way it was written either.  At some point in the article, a guy is quoted saying something like...well...we can not really confirm nor deny if it works from these tests...which does not really jive with the whole upsetting of the laws of conservation of energy thing.

I just copied and pasted the headline from the article for the topic title but really...that headline is a little too optimistic at this point.  I really hope it does work and, I hope that the tests are done correctly and verified by others.  Then, we might really have something.

Bill
It would be nice if I were wrong on this one.  But I remain confident that there is nothing to this.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: conradelektro on July 30, 2015, 04:10:40 PM
Here you can find some information about Prof. Dr. Martin Tajmar and his research:

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/breakthrough_propulsion_physics (http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/breakthrough_propulsion_physics)  (many papers can be downloaded as PDF-files)

The drive mentioned in the article from The Independent seems to be this one:

Tajmar, M. and Fiedler, G.,
 "Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects",
 AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA-2015-4083, Orlando, July 27-29 (2015)

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf (http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf)

Does it work? Probably not! If it did work convincingly, the University would make much more noise in order to get funds. It would be big news in Europe.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on July 30, 2015, 05:08:58 PM
@Mark E
Quote
It would be nice if I were wrong on this one.  But I remain confident that there is nothing to this.


I believe you are wrong and that we are about to make a leap in technology. Think of it this way, the airplane did not come about because of the invention of wings, propellers or more powerful engines. It came about when people came to understand we could accelerate a volume of air and use the inertia of this volume to produce a force. It came to be when we understood the fluid we call air could be rendered semi-rigid and we could act upon it.


This technology is really no different and it is supposed that we cannot act on an empty space using the same kind of thinking that concluded we could not act on air. As such it comes as no surprise that your argument is the exact same one used 100 years ago. That is you cannot act on something which is not present...but there is something present Mark.


Personally I find it strange that some who proclaim to know so much understand so little. Think of it this way, all particles which make up matter are known to absorb and radiate energy in discrete packets symmetrically. Where do you think this energy comes from?, if it is a proven theory and it is then where do you think this absorbed energy comes from and where is it radiated to?. Rather than dumb down matter to the level of bulk tangible objects we should understand matter as we know it is fluid and made of billions if not trillions of particles, fields and motion.


Now if extremely short wavelength electromagnetic waves could interfere with the energy we know is always being absorbed and radiated at the particle level then this continuous process at that level may become asymmetrical which may produce a force. However you never thought of that did you?, you never thought to consider that the energy input may act on a deeper level than the simple surface effects you seem preoccupied with.


This is the future and it started with nano-technology and the understanding that we can engineer the inherent properties of matter rather than simply accepting them as they are. Why we already have nano-materials which can have strong magnetic properties in one instance and a few micro-seconds later have absolutely no magnetic properties. how does this relate to your understanding of ferromagnetism?, when we can simply turn an inherent material property on and off at will?. You see you have made many assumptions based on simplistic examples which are so out of context they have literally no application.


You cannot compare one apple to another apple which can manipulate it's inherent properties at will because the comparison is completely out of context... context matters. We will engineer and manipulate materials at the atomic level in the future and we will have the ability to change the inherent properties of matter to suit our needs... it's called progress.


"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -
Albert Einstein



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on July 30, 2015, 05:51:09 PM
@All


Here is the nature of the problem at hand as I see it.


Now I have a rock and a balloon on a table and Mark tells me energy is always conserved and there is nothing I can do to change this fact with respect to the rock and balloon. At which point I say this is true in the sense that if I do nothing then nothing will happen or work in equals work out as it stands... then I say watch this.


At this point I fill the balloon with helium and tie the rock to it and it starts to rise and the wind carries it away and out of sight. Then I say.... what you said is true however the balloon and rock are now interacting with external energy I did not input because I have changed the properties of the system. The force imparted by the wind over a very great distance was not my doing I simply changed the variables and properties to change the result.


So yes Mark is correct and work in equals work out and energy is always conserved when applied in the right context which is constrained. However it does not apply to a change in properties which allows the system to interact with the external environment. My input filling the balloon with helium has no direct relation to the force acting on the balloon over any distance.


As such the simple argument that nothing can happen is false because as always it is dependent on the variables and context in which they are applied. We cannot use the most basic example to explain a more complex one which interacts with the external environment... that is absurd.


The only question we need ask here is ... Is our energy input to change a physical property equivalent to the work which may be performed due to the change in properties as it relates to it's environment?. In the case of the balloon, rock and helium it is not equivalent in which case we might consider other ways in which we could apply this same thought.




AC

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 30, 2015, 08:45:25 PM
@Mark E

I believe you are wrong and that we are about to make a leap in technology.
You are welcome to that view.  We should know for certain within a few months.  As the tests have gotten cleaner, the apparent thrust has gotten smaller, strongly suggesting that when the tests are really clean the apparent thrust will vanish completely.  Reliable data will tell the story either way.
Quote
Think of it this way, the airplane did not come about because of the invention of wings, propellers or more powerful engines.
Well actually manned flight did come about when power to weight ratio became high enough and the Wright brothers worked out a viable control scheme.
Quote
It came about when people came to understand we could accelerate a volume of air and use the inertia of this volume to produce a force. It came to be when we understood the fluid we call air could be rendered semi-rigid and we could act upon it.
Bernoulli came a couple hundred years before the Wright brothers.  His principle was key, but without an engine with a good enough power to weight ratio powered flight was still an impossibility.
Quote


This technology is really no different and it is supposed that we cannot act on an empty space using the same kind of thinking that concluded we could not act on air. As such it comes as no surprise that your argument is the exact same one used 100 years ago. That is you cannot act on something which is not present...but there is something present Mark.
You may think so, but again: reliable data tells the tale.  Reliable data is not yet on Shawyer's side, and the building body of evidence suggests that it won't ever be.
Quote


Personally I find it strange that some who proclaim to know so much understand so little. Think of it this way, all particles which make up matter are known to absorb and radiate energy in discrete packets symmetrically. Where do you think this energy comes from?, if it is a proven theory and it is then where do you think this absorbed energy comes from and where is it radiated to?. Rather than dumb down matter to the level of bulk tangible objects we should understand matter as we know it is fluid and made of billions if not trillions of particles, fields and motion.
If you think you have superior physical theories to those in present use, you are free to articulate them and execute experiments where you expect they will distinguish themselves.
Quote


Now if extremely short wavelength electromagnetic waves could interfere with the energy we know is always being absorbed and radiated at the particle level then this continuous process at that level may become asymmetrical which may produce a force. However you never thought of that did you?, you never thought to consider that the energy input may act on a deeper level than the simple surface effects you seem preoccupied with.
If, and if, and if some more.  If you have an idea then find a way to test it to see if it has merit.
Quote


This is the future and it started with nano-technology and the understanding that we can engineer the inherent properties of matter rather than simply accepting them as they are.
Nano technology utilizes material characteristics with finer control than at larger scales.  The underlying materials themselves do not change.
Quote
Why we already have nano-materials which can have strong magnetic properties in one instance and a few micro-seconds later have absolutely no magnetic properties. how does this relate to your understanding of ferromagnetism?, when we can simply turn an inherent material property on and off at will?. You see you have made many assumptions based on simplistic examples which are so out of context they have literally no application.
You allege that I think one thing or another or assume one thing or another.  I would like to see citations that support those claims.
Quote


You cannot compare one apple to another apple which can manipulate it's inherent properties at will because the comparison is completely out of context... context matters. We will engineer and manipulate materials at the atomic level in the future and we will have the ability to change the inherent properties of matter to suit our needs... it's called progress.
Technology does march on.
Quote


"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -
Albert Einstein



AC
Magical thinking is also counter productive.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on July 30, 2015, 08:54:45 PM
@All


Here is the nature of the problem at hand as I see it.


Now I have a rock and a balloon on a table and Mark tells me energy is always conserved and there is nothing I can do to change this fact with respect to the rock and balloon. At which point I say this is true in the sense that if I do nothing then nothing will happen or work in equals work out as it stands... then I say watch this.


At this point I fill the balloon with helium and tie the rock to it and it starts to rise and the wind carries it away and out of sight. Then I say.... what you said is true however the balloon and rock are now interacting with external energy I did not input because I have changed the properties of the system. The force imparted by the wind over a very great distance was not my doing I simply changed the variables and properties to change the result.


So yes Mark is correct and work in equals work out and energy is always conserved when applied in the right context which is constrained. However it does not apply to a change in properties which allows the system to interact with the external environment. My input filling the balloon with helium has no direct relation to the force acting on the balloon over any distance.


As such the simple argument that nothing can happen is false because as always it is dependent on the variables and context in which they are applied. We cannot use the most basic example to explain a more complex one which interacts with the external environment... that is absurd.


The only question we need ask here is ... Is our energy input to change a physical property equivalent to the work which may be performed due to the change in properties as it relates to it's environment?. In the case of the balloon, rock and helium it is not equivalent in which case we might consider other ways in which we could apply this same thought.




AC
Your analogy breaks down unless you can come up with a "momentum wind" that acts on something that does not eject propellant.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 09:22:32 PM
The QV really doesn't enter into the claims as Shawyer makes them.  Special relativity does though.


The vacuum only slightly enters into the equation as Shawyer is currently presenting it to the public.  For example, turn the fan around on the sailboat and it goes from a closed system to more of an open system while increasing it's performance and efficiency.  Same thing with the EmDrive.  Convert the EmDrive into an open system and the thrust is greatly increased along with it's efficiency.  In an open system, we can greatly increase the tiny vacuum effect, thus greatly increasing it's thrust.  The technical details shows how to convert this effect into an open system.  I'll post the details in my next few posts.


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
I may be wrong but I am fairly sure I read that the actual thrust from one of the devices under discussion was measured as a few hundred millinewtons. It would take several weeks to accelerate a bicycle from 5 mph to 10 mph.


Yes, but not in the open system that is currently being hidden from the public.


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 09:36:06 PM
Your analogy breaks down unless you can come up with a "momentum wind" that acts on something that does not eject propellant.

Here'e the "momentum wind" you've asked for that can act on something that doesn't eject propellant.

The lenard/cathode rays can escape through an outer aluminum layer of the cathode ray tube and will ionize the air. The cathode rays do not directly produce the vacuum. It's the ability of the surrounding medium to absorb the disassociated molecules after they are deformed or ionized by the cathode/lenard rays. The quicker the deformed molecules or ions are absorbed into the surrounding atmosphere, the greater the intensity of the vacuum; the greater the thrust available to the craft.  The positive ions are attracted near the surface of the craft, and the negative ions are repelled away from the craft.  The surrounding atmosphere then absorbs these displaced ions at an extremely fast rate which leaves behind a vacuum.

.......continuing

Gravock





Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 09:41:19 PM

Gassiot, in the middle of the nineteenth century, made the first unsuccessful attempts to pass electricity through rarefied gases. After him, Plucker invented the tube which was later used by Geissler for his experiments, from which the name "Geissler tubes" is derived.  Other scientists of world fame, like Crookes, also carried out experiments with considerable success, which resulted in considerable progress in the field of physics.


In a Geissler tube the atmospheric pressure is reduced to between 1 and 3 mm. of mercury. If the tube contains air and the anode and cathode ends of it are put into contact with the positive and negative poles of a high tension electric current, the whole tube lights up with a violet light, with the exception of a space at the cathode end where the light is blue and separated from the remaining violet light by a dark band.


Various effects are brought about by changing the gas pressure inside the tube, such as the appearance of dark bands which are known as Faraday bands; the disintegration of gas molecules, liberating hydrogen; changes in the colour of the light to green, yellow, red, etc. Crookes succeeded in proving the mechanical action of cathode rays by bombarding rotary blades with them and setting them in motion. Similar experiments with spheres painted black produced the same result.


There was, however, one great difficulty which dogged the steps of science: cathode rays could not leave the tube of rarefied air since they were incapable of passing through any substance. The scientists asked themselves what effect cathode rays had on the ordinary atmosphere.


It was then that Lenard, Nobel prize winner in physics in 1905, working on Hertz' previous experiments, made an aluminium "window" on the opposite side to the cathode which projected the rays outside the tube where they could be studied with ease. He proved that these "Lenard rays" could be propagated in the atmosphere as easily as in the rarefied air of the tube, causing atmospheric phenomena of a similar nature. He proved that the passage of electrons through the dense air of the atmosphere appeared to open up a tunnel giving rise to strong ionization of the particles with considerable air turbulence and luminous effects which varied according to the voltage used.


However, he could not completely comprehend the nature of the phenomena as he did not know that they were the result of a disturbance in the atmosphere and ether. The most important thing as far as we are concerned, is to know whether or not ionization causes a drop in atmospheric pressure. It is now well known from meteorology that heavy ions cause low pressure, they often bring about devastating cyclones.


It is known that the emission of a single particle of medium velocity can produce in the first centimeter of its trajectory through the atmosphere as many as 24,400 ions. The number gradually increases as the particle proceeds along its trajectory. Even using a low voltage, the electrons moved through space at a speed of between 25,000 and 50,000 miles per second.


Later it was observed that by using 250,000 volts, the electrons moved at 150,000 miles per second. In one experiment 900,000 volts was used, but the speed of the electron was not noted. It is also well known that the higher the voltage used, the greater is the number of ions produced, sometimes as many as 2 million ions appearing in the first centimeter of the electron's trajectory.


Subsequent experiments showed that the electrons emanating from cathode ray tubes could break down the atmosphere and set free hydrogen which then also became ionized.  It may well be that these rays break the atmosphere down completely, and set free the nuclei, which they subsequently join up with, thus producing the amount of hydrogen that has been observed.


Madame Curie was able to calculate the speed of ions as 1.3 cm. per electron volt in dense atmosphere, and 6.7 cm. per electron volt when the ionic movement took place in pure hydrogen. This shows that a high voltage would result in a higher electron speed and that in the upper atmosphere the speed would be greater.  The vacuum creating effect is, however, not strictly due to the intrinsic speed of the ion, but to the atmosphere's ability to absorb ionized particles.


While negative ions are absorbed by the atmosphere, the positive ones move towards the negatively charged surface of the saucer, at which point the electrons pass into the vacuum.  In an ordinary cathode ray tube the electric current reaches a saturation point which shows that all the atmospheric particles contained within the tube have been ionized. This is due to the limited amount of electrolyte within the confines of the tube. In the case of the flying saucer the electrolyte is made up of the whole atmospheric envelope of the Earth which never reaches saturation point. The ionized "bubble" surrounding the saucer is attracted and absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere with tremendous force and in its place only a vacuum is left, into which the saucer moves, impelled by the atmospheric pressure of 1.033 kg. per cm2.


........continuing


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 09:49:18 PM
In order to go straight up, then the vacuum is produced on the top portion of the craft, and the craft will be impelled into the vacuum from the atmospheric pressure underneath.  The craft will always be facing a wall of less than 1 atmospheric pressure as it moves, thus there is no worry for structural damage, fatigue, or being torched.  In addition to this, sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, thus there is no sonic booms associated with these crafts.  There's no g-forces when an object is pulled from the front and is pushed from the back with an equal force.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 10:02:26 PM
If there's low pressure on one side, the other side is subject to the full atmospheric pressure.   With an atmospheric pressure of 1.033 kg. per sq. cm. we can calculate the force operating on a saucer of 20 m. diameter is equal to 3,278,272.8 kg.The cathode rays intersect the anode rays at an angle of 45 degrees. This is achieved by using high voltage and current.  If you wish to go very fast, then use an absolute vacuum.  Use a semi-vacuum to move more slowly. The intensity of the vacuum is proportional to the current used and is controlled by a rheostat. If you want to follow an undulating course, then use a pulsing current.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 30, 2015, 10:05:32 PM
Brown-Biefield effect. There's a thrust in a capacitor toward the negative charge plate too. The plasma produces a magnetic field.


Other than the Brown-Biefield effect being misunderstood, you are absolutely correct!


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on July 31, 2015, 01:43:59 AM

It's amazing how a simple aluminum window can easily convert the EmDrive from a closed system to an open system, just like turning the fan 180o on the boat with a sail.  By hiding the aluminum window from the public, then it falsely gives the perception that it is a closed system, and then it no longer supports the claims made for the open system with the window.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Hope on August 01, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
"Perhaps" Tesla's valve could be used for this purpose.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 01, 2015, 02:52:18 PM
@Mark E
Quote
Your analogy breaks down unless you can come up with a "momentum wind" that acts on something that does not eject propellant.


I would agree it was kind of a lame analogy relative to the topic at hand.


As I said in a prior post I believe I have seen this technology first hand in a working craft however since that time I have still been trying to wrap my mind around the concept. 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.


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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 01, 2015, 03:14:48 PM
@Mark E

I would agree it was kind of a lame analogy relative to the topic at hand.


As I said in a prior post I believe I have seen this technology first hand in a working craft however since that time I have still been trying to wrap my mind around the concept. 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.


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
Perhaps what you observed simply had a lot of empeneage area and powerful engines. 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: tinman on August 01, 2015, 04:36:25 PM
@Mark E

I would agree it was kind of a lame analogy relative to the topic at hand.


As I said in a prior post I believe I have seen this technology first hand in a working craft however since that time I have still been trying to wrap my mind around the concept. 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.


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
Maybe the craft travels in a time dilation bubble?.To us it may look like it's going quite fast,but to the beings in the craft,maybe there just cruising around at 30MPH.

Magnetic fields can bend/twist light,so maybe it has some sort of effect on time as well.

Funny thing about a fan blowing on the sail of a boat-the boat will actually move,and the direction is opposite to that of the air traveling through the fan blade-->aint that a hoot.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Paul-R on August 01, 2015, 04:55:40 PM


Funny thing about a fan blowing on the sail of a boat-the boat will actually move,and the direction is opposite to that of the air traveling through the fan blade-->aint that a hoot.
A fan will suck on one  side of the blades and blow on the other. If the effect of the blowing is impeded by the sail, there should be an imbalance.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 01, 2015, 05:35:50 PM
Maybe the craft travels in a time dilation bubble?.To us it may look like it's going quite fast,but to the beings in the craft,maybe there just cruising around at 30MPH.

Magnetic fields can bend/twist light,so maybe it has some sort of effect on time as well.

Funny thing about a fan blowing on the sail of a boat-the boat will actually move,and the direction is opposite to that of the air traveling through the fan blade-->aint that a hoot.

I just watched a mythbusters last night and they showed that if the fan's velocity is fast enough, it does not move in the opposite direction, it moves in the direction the fan is blowing.  This takes a lot of moving air and is no where near as efficient as turning the fan around and removing the sail.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 03, 2015, 09:18:34 AM
@Mark E
Quote
Perhaps what you observed simply had a lot of empeneage area and powerful engines.


I have always been interested in aviation for as long as I can remember more so as an engineer and I like the technical aspects. In fact I have observed a 30' ground to ground missile take off from a couple miles away and it was over the horizon in about 3 seconds.


This was nothing like that, it was a clear calm winters night and the craft had no plume from the rear, no vapor trail and made no sound going from hover to at minimum 10 times the velocity of a missile. It is so far removed from what we know of current technology that they are simply not comparable. Have you ever seen a shooting star fly across the horizon?, now imagine a shooting star with no tail hovering in place then accelerating and making a sweeping turn upward and out of sight... it was moving that fast.


I understand most people don't believe this is possible which is why I have said you have to see it to believe it. That is the only acceptable proof in my opinion.... you have to see it to believe it and I have. It makes my life easier because I don't have to wonder if it is possible because I know it is so the only question which remains is how?.


I also saw another oddity in the sky last fall, it was a set of three dull red beacon type lights in a perfect triangle which were not flashing. I saw it on the horizon and it went directly overhead at high altitude. As you may know law requires a red, green and white light as well as an anti-collision strobe none of which were present on the craft I observed. I think the reason most people may not see these things is because almost nobody actually spends any amount of time outside at night anymore while I enjoy watching the stars. Do the math... I spend way more time stargazing than most everyone I know and I have only seen two events which make no sense in my lifetime.




AC







Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 03, 2015, 10:16:24 AM
@Mark E

I have always been interested in aviation for as long as I can remember more so as an engineer and I like the technical aspects. In fact I have observed a 30' ground to ground missile take off from a couple miles away and it was over the horizon in about 3 seconds.


This was nothing like that, it was a clear calm winters night and the craft had no plume from the rear, no vapor trail and made no sound going from hover to at minimum 10 times the velocity of a missile. It is so far removed from what we know of current technology that they are simply not comparable. Have you ever seen a shooting star fly across the horizon?, now imagine a shooting star with no tail hovering in place then accelerating and making a sweeping turn upward and out of sight... it was moving that fast.


I understand most people don't believe this is possible which is why I have said you have to see it to believe it. That is the only acceptable proof in my opinion.... you have to see it to believe it and I have. It makes my life easier because I don't have to wonder if it is possible because I know it is so the only question which remains is how?.


I also saw another oddity in the sky last fall, it was a set of three dull red beacon type lights in a perfect triangle which were not flashing. I saw it on the horizon and it went directly overhead at high altitude. As you may know law requires a red, green and white light as well as an anti-collision strobe none of which were present on the craft I observed. I think the reason most people may not see these things is because almost nobody actually spends any amount of time outside at night anymore while I enjoy watching the stars. Do the math... I spend way more time stargazing than most everyone I know and I have only seen two events which make no sense in my lifetime.




AC
So this was a light in the sky that you saw moving?  What did you have available to fix: distance, size, and speed?  Without the aid of something like a radar, I don't know how I would be able to judge distance in the sky, particularly at night.  I know that my eyes are easily fooled.  As to lights:  I think that if someone wanted to hide a vehicle, I don't think they would turn on any kind of indicators.  I am not trying to sell you a swamp gas story before your complimentary eye exam.  I just don't see anywhere near enough information to draw any conclusion as to what it was that you saw.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 03, 2015, 04:55:45 PM
@Mark E
Quote
So this was a light in the sky that you saw moving?  What did you have
available to fix: distance, size, and speed?  Without the aid of something like
a radar, I don't know how I would be able to judge distance in the sky,
particularly at night.  I know that my eyes are easily fooled.  As to lights:  I
think that if someone wanted to hide a vehicle, I don't think they would turn on
any kind of indicators.  I am not trying to sell you a swamp gas story before
your complimentary eye exam.  I just don't see anywhere near enough information
to draw any conclusion as to what it was that you saw.

In the first instance I and another witness saw 4 equally spaced brilliant white lights turn on almost instantly at an angle of about 40 degrees upward from ground level South West from us. My guesstimate would be near 1 or 2 miles out and they hovered in place making no sound whatsoever on a dead calm clear winters night. Keep in mind we were 35 miles from the nearest town and 90 mlies from the nearest city, there is no light pollution and the night sky and stars are so clear most people cannot even imagine it. At first I thought it was aircraft landing lights or possibly two or more craft in formation ie.. equally spaced lights, however after a minute I understood many things simply did not add up. It was hovering in place not moving at all and it made absolutely no sound as well if we draw an arc from our eye outward an object may be close and small or it may be far and very large and this craft was by no means close to us.

The white lights hovered in place not moving and making no sound for about three minutes when a smaller dull orange spherical shaped craft left the larger one from the right side and hovered in place for around a half second. The smaller craft then started accelerating to the west making a wide sweeping arc upwards and continued accelerating upward and away from us until it disappeared from sight. To be perfectly clear the smaller craft went from hover at relatively low altitude to an extremely high altitude... no longer visible... in about 1.25 seconds and it accelerated upward like nothing you can even possibly imagine with no jet plume, no vapor trail and no sound. I could go into very much more precise detail because I am a very good observer however these were the main observations. Then we talked about what we just saw and we confirmed that in fact both of us saw exactly the same thing. I also noted that the other person was uneasy, not scared but they had a very concerned look on their face. At no point did I feel scared in any way, more so amazed and very curious as to how this was possible.

 
Again, I would state this is something which is almost impossible to believe unless you have seen it for yourself however once you have there is absolutely no doubt that this is real and this technology is not even remotely comparable to the conventional technology we know of.
 
Quote
So this was a light in the sky that you saw moving?  What did you have available
to fix: distance, size, and speed?  Without the aid of something like a radar, I
don't know how I would be able to judge distance in the sky, particularly at
night.

I thought I should address this question specifically. I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of airplanes flying at night at various altitudes and in fact is very easy to judge the relative distance and velocity. So long as it is clear and the stars are visible in the background we use this as a reference just as we use a known background such as land behind a moving car. It is very easy and I have absolutely no issue with it , you have seen airplanes fly over on a clear night have you not?. I would hope you would be able to tell if it was at 1000 feet or 30,000 and whether it was moving at 100 mph or 600 mph because I have no issues with it what so ever.
 
AC
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 03, 2015, 07:03:29 PM
@Mark E
For clarity I am going to make this a separate post, what I observed has never left my mind since that time and over the years I have come to understand how it may be possible.
 
Now consider the facts, an unknown craft accelerates from hover at low altitude and makes a wide sweeping turn upwards to a very high altitude and out of sight in around 1.25 seconds. This impossible acceleration implies two scenario's in my mind, one it has a very low mass and an extreme energy source or two the inertial effects of matter have been changed or negated in some way. Do the math, Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and it requires a known amount of work (Force x Distance) to change the velocity of a mass. So either the craft required an astronomical amount of energy to accelerate to ultra high velocity without ejecting mass or a small accelerating force is required and the properties of the mass have changed in some way ie. it's inertial properties.
 
I have always found it strange that many claim to have great knowledge and understanding however their claim breaks down when asking even the most basic questions. For instance Inertia is claimed to be the resistance of any physical object (mass) to any change in its state of motion (velocity or direction). However to my knowledge not one person anywhere can tell me what inertia is fundamentally or why or how it acts on a mass the way it does. So here's a good question... if the change in motion of a mass is "resisted" then how exactly is it "resisted" and by what and from where because as we all know the most fundamental law is that something may not act on nothing any more than nothing may act on something.
 
Extreme accelerations and greater than light speed are not thought possible because the energy input is supposedly equivalent to the change in motion which is "resisted" ie, Inertia, however nobody anywhere can seem to tell me exactly how or why it is "resisted". Aparrently it just is and there is no rhyme or reason or real understanding to it in any sense of the word. At which point we may apply some simple logic... if the claim that the property of inertia always applies in every instance is true then it must be proven that it applies in "every" instance of an infinite number of possibilities or it is a false claim. The fact that nobody knows what this "resisting" force of inertia is should have been our first indication that all is not known and we have more unanswered questions than we do answers.
 
The fact of the matter is that if for any reason the change in motion of a mass is not resisted due to the property of Inertia then all bets are off and impossible acceleration and greater than light speed are well within the realm of possibility. So I will put the question to everyone here... can anyone explain how and why the change in motion of a mass is resisted?. Note the conservation of energy is not a valid answer because interia reinforces the fundamental nature of the conservation of energy thus the argument becomes circular and a false claim. We cannot use one concept to reinforce a second then use the second to prove the first because that's all bass ackwards.
 
AC
 
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: picowatt on August 03, 2015, 08:44:28 PM
AC,

What you describe witnessing does not seem to rule out the possibility that what you saw were conventional aircraft and associated landing/navigation lights.  Note that you easily use the word "craft" to describe what you saw, when, apparently, all you can say for certain is that you saw "lights".  Did you actually see any "craft"?  It is very easy for the mind to fill in the blanks with facts not in evidence.   

What did the three observed white lights do?  Did you watch until they were gone and if so, how/when did they leave/disappear?

PW
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 03, 2015, 09:28:00 PM
@picowatt
Quote
What you describe witnessing does not seem to rule out the possibility that what
you saw were conventional aircraft and associated landing/navigation
lights. 
To my knowledge convential aircraft cannot climb from low altitude to a very very high altitude near vertically in 1.25 seconds in complete silence... unless of course you know otherwise?. There is no possibility these were conventional aircraft because of the velocity and altitude involved, no sound, no jet plume and no vapor trail.
 
Quote
Note that you easily use the word "craft" to describe what you saw, when,
apparently, all you can say for certain is that you saw "lights".
Yes I did make the assumption that the lights were attached to something...wouldn't you as well?. I mean they were hovering in place then another accelerated to high altittude in a sweeping arc so yes I assumed the lights were attached to a "craft" of some sort.
 
Quote
Did you actually see any "craft"?  It is very easy for the mind to fill in
the blanks with facts not in evidence.
 
Again, lights do not generally just hover in place or fly around at high velocity, make sweeping arcs upward to high altitude all on their own. I have never seen a 100w lightbulb or flare do this and I don't expect I ever will unless of course you know different?. So yes I assumed the lights were attached to a "craft" which I could not see because it was night. I should note the four white lights were intense and brilliant like a star while the dull orange craft was not like a light. The dull orange craft was perfectly spherical more like an object which was glowing orange rather than a light bulb type of illumination.
 
Quote
What did the three observed white lights do?  Did you watch until they were gone
and if so, how/when did they leave/disappear?
The four very intense white lights came on in an instant then hovered in place for a few minutes making no sound what so ever. As well just before the smaller dull orange craft left from the right side of the white lights they became super intense and seemed to light up the whole sky. The white lights then returned to there normal intensity as the smaller orange craft hovered in place. The smaller dull orange craft then started accelerating like a bat out of hell horizontally to the west, made a sweeping or arcing turn upwards vertically and continued accelerating upward until it left our sight at very high altitude. The four white lights continued to hover in position making no sound for maybe another 30 seconds and then they simply went out. They did not fade out and they went out as abruptly as they first came on and the show was over.
 
The fact remains that lights do not just fly about on there own accord not attached to anything and conventional aircraft cannot accelerate from low altitude to very high altitude near vertically in about one second... no sound, no plume, no vapor trail.... you tell me because I would love to hear a reasonable explanation.
 
 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: picowatt on August 03, 2015, 10:29:24 PM
AC,

Even in your latest post, there is nothing there that definitely rules out conventional aircraft and lighting.

The apparently unusual high rate of speed of the less bright orange light is only based on your assumptions of perceived distance.

Like you, I look up quite a lot.  I too have seen some rather strange things, but I have also seen normal aircraft putting on some quite unusual light shows.

Case in point.  One night at around 3AM I observed a very large white light towards due south about 10 to 15 degrees off the horizon.  No apparent motion, no twinkling, no hint of nav lights, just hovering in place.  I thought airplane landing lights first thing, but after 15 minutes of apparently hovering motionless in the sky, I began to wonder.  It looked to be very large in diameter, and just guessing, I would have said that it appeared to be 50 to 200 feet in diameter and 10 miles or so distant.  I considered waking a witness, just in case it really was something odd, but instead decided to just go inside and fetch binoculars.  Upon returning outside, the object was still there.  Through the binocs I could see a hint of twinkling, but still it appeared as only a very large roundish white light.  After observing for over 30 minutes or so, the light took on a bit of colored blinking, and thru the binocs it began to look as if the object was modulating its size and shape, becoming a wider oval with colored edges and then a perfectly circular and narrower solid white light.  It was so strange at this point, my heart began pounding a bit, as I hoped this would turn out to be a really cool sighting.  After another 15 minutes, it was becoming quite obvious that this was just a very low flying airplane with landing lights on.  Ten minutes later the small twin engine biz jet flew directly overhead at I would guess to be well under 5000 feet or so, which was quite an unusually low altitude for such around here.

At the speeds a small biz class jet flies, consider how far away that plane was when first sighted almost an hour away.  It was a cool and clear night, and being at low altitude, atmospheric optical effects came into play.  Had I not stayed for the whole duration of the event, with subsequent flyover, I would have considered my observation to be of something other than normal.  Also, I would never have estimated the original sighting to be anywhere near as far as it must have been based on typical biz jet speeds and the time it took to arrive overhead.  I would have guessed that the object was only 10 to 20 miles away at most, when in reality, it was likely more than 180-250 miles away, with atmospheric effects allowing me to see "over the horizon" and magnifying its apparent size.

I have indeed seen some rather strange and unexplained things as well, but it is a constant battle to not allow one's mind to fill in any blanks with facts not actually in evidence.  For example, I would never state that I saw a "craft" unless I actually saw some physical form that made using that word appropriate.

PW   
           
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 03, 2015, 11:11:39 PM
@Mark E
...
 
 I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of airplanes flying at night at various altitudes and in fact is very easy to judge the relative distance and velocity. So long as it is clear and the stars are visible in the background we use this as a reference just as we use a known background such as land behind a moving car. It is very easy and I have absolutely no issue with it , you have seen airplanes fly over on a clear night have you not?. I would hope you would be able to tell if it was at 1000 feet or 30,000 and whether it was moving at 100 mph or 600 mph because I have no issues with it what so ever.
 
AC
This I dispute based on the science of vision.  Absent a good reference, and a clear night sky offers virtually none, there is no good way to judge distance.  A common illusion makes people think things are much closer than they are.  See for example the Ponzo illusion.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 04, 2015, 12:05:01 AM
@picowatt
Quote
I have indeed seen some rather strange and unexplained things as well, but it
is a constant battle to not allow one's mind to fill in any blanks with facts
not actually in evidence.  For example, I would never state that I saw a "craft"
unless I actually saw some physical form that made using that word
appropriate.

I would agree the four white lights in formation could have been many things including aircraft because as you say I only observed the lights. The dull orange glowing object however accelerated at great velocity horizontally then made a sweeping turn upward and continued accelerating vertically upward until it left our sight. As such we can assume it would fall under the definition of a craft under some means of control. There is no natural phenomena or aircraft I know of that can make a coordinated turn upward acting against the force of gravity to that altitude at that speed. So while your experience is similar it has no application with respect to the glowing orange craft I witnessed.
 
@Mark E
Quote
This I dispute based on the science of vision.  Absent a good reference, and a
clear night sky offers virtually none, there is no good way to judge distance. 
A common illusion makes people think things are much closer than they are.  See
for example the Ponzo illusion.

I would say that near or far is irrelevant with respect to the fact one craft made a controlled turn at extremely high speed then accelerated near vertically until it was out of sight. Near of far it accelerated from horizontal to vertical like a bat out of hell with no sound, no plume and no vapor trail. In any case millions of people have observed similar things and many are trained observers like policemen, the military and aviators of unquestionable credibility. I would think a trained observer seeing an object at relatively close range would have the ultimate in credibility versus someone who has never actually observed anything, wouldn't you agree?.
I understand your point I really do however I know what I saw and many others have seen very similar things as well and to say it is impossible is to presume hundreds of thousands of people are somehow misguided. I dispute that anyone would think so many professional people who are trained observers are mistaken in what they saw based on others opinions who have never observed anything. You cannot argue facts when you have none, the fact is I saw it for myself first hand and there is no mistaking it was not conventional in any sense of the word.
Saying what I saw cannot be real just because you have never seen it is not a valid argument because that would mean everything you have never seen cannot be real either. You are highly illogical.
 
AC
 
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 04, 2015, 02:53:54 AM
@All


On reading my last post I now understand how pointless it was because the fact remains that the odds of anyone proving to me that I did not actually observe what I know I did as a fact is basically zero. It is absurd and pointless and it is what it is , you cannot convince someone to un-observe what they have already observed as a known fact. However if 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days and maybe 40% believe in wormholes, warping space-time and virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes then maybe just maybe my believing I saw an unknown craft/object doing some strange shit in the sky I don't fully understand doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison.


As well the hypocrisy is mind boggling because many people who would believe a supposed god created the universe in six days routinely judge other people who claim to have seen an unidentified(unknown)flying(it's relative) object(again it's relative) as crazy or misguided. I find this hard to fathom and it just seems so utterly ridiculous that it defies the imagination, apparently god doesn't believe in other intelligent life or UFO's either... go figure. Then we have that other kind of religion based on supposed science that never actually was and people say they require proof to believe but don't actually have any...  again go figure. The common thread here is people who judge others as crazy for believing without proof despite the fact they don't actually have any real proof either way about much of anything.


It is without a doubt in my mind the most messed up scenario of logic I could possibly image and I'm just not feeling the vulcan type deep logic I expected here. It is a superficial quagmire of the truly illogical where people try to disprove a concept by challenging the credibility of the individual despite the fact they claim the concept must stand on it's own. In effect we have turned science into a pissing contest and while I'm not against such things I still believe it must have it's place in the proper context.


At which point we are left with the question as to why nobody would touch my simple question concerning Inertia with a ten foot pole. That is what is inertia specifically, fundamentally?, I know you want to run and avoid it like the plague and you have no idea where to even start however in this respect I may be able to help. So let's go there, to that place you fear most... I'm sure Mark thinks he is up to it however thinking and believing rarely resemble the true facts of any matter, time will tell. Let's get in on... Brother.


From the Urban Dictionary
Brother: a person whom you are related to. sometimes a role model. sometimes an ass. sometimes a friend. a person who you are stuck being related to until the day you die through good or bad


AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 04, 2015, 03:55:54 AM

 
@Mark E
I would say that near or far is irrelevant with respect to the fact one craft made a controlled turn at extremely high speed then accelerated near vertically until it was out of sight. Near of far it accelerated from horizontal to vertical like a bat out of hell with no sound, no plume and no vapor trail. In any case millions of people have observed similar things and many are trained observers like policemen, the military and aviators of unquestionable credibility. I would think a trained observer seeing an object at relatively close range would have the ultimate in credibility versus someone who has never actually observed anything, wouldn't you agree?.
I understand your point I really do however I know what I saw and many others have seen very similar things as well and to say it is impossible is to presume hundreds of thousands of people are somehow misguided. I dispute that anyone would think so many professional people who are trained observers are mistaken in what they saw based on others opinions who have never observed anything. You cannot argue facts when you have none, the fact is I saw it for myself first hand and there is no mistaking it was not conventional in any sense of the word.
Saying what I saw cannot be real just because you have never seen it is not a valid argument because that would mean everything you have never seen cannot be real either. You are highly illogical.
 
AC
One can't estimate speed without knowing distance.  I don't see any means that you would have had to set distance. 

Observers can only perceive what their faculties allow.  Our brains apply all kinds of biases.  If our faculties could not be readily fooled then people like magicians would have a hard time making a living. 

I've told you that there is insufficient reliable data to agree with your conclusions.  If you want to build and strike down a straw man; then have a great time slaying such beasts. 

That many people think that they have seen something suggests a common phenomenon.  It does not suggest what the phenomenon is. 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 04, 2015, 04:33:58 AM
One can't estimate speed without knowing distance.  I don't see any means that you would have had to set distance. 

Observers can only perceive what their faculties allow.  Our brains apply all kinds of biases.  If our faculties could not be readily fooled then people like magicians would have a hard time making a living. 

I've told you that there is insufficient reliable data to agree with your conclusions.  If you want to build and strike down a straw man; then have a great time slaying such beasts. 

That many people think that they have seen something suggests a common phenomenon.  It does not suggest what the phenomenon is.

Exactly right.  I could fly a small quad copter drone 1,000 ft. from your position at night, make it hover, and then blast up into the sky at thousands of miles and hour.  Well, not that fast obviously but, if you thought my drone to be 20-30 ft. in diameter, and ten miles away...your mind would be fooled into thinking it was going upwards that fast.

No point or frame of reference, to size and distance, means all of those observations are meaningless.

A friend of mine once called me outside to see a real ufo.  He was serious and he had not been drinking.  (I can't speak for AC)  After watching this greenish glowing light dart all over the night sky for about 5 minutes, performing all sorts of impossible maneuvers like instantly reversing direction, going straight up at high speed, diving again and then hovering...all with no sound whatsoever.

I went inside and got a high powered flashlight and showed my friend he was simply watching a lightning bug.  He was dumbfound and surprised.
The mind is easily fooled.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 04, 2015, 04:44:40 AM
@All


On reading my last post I now understand how pointless it was because the fact remains that the odds of anyone proving to me that I did not actually observe what I know I did as a fact is basically zero. It is absurd and pointless and it is what it is , you cannot convince someone to un-observe what they have already observed as a known fact. However if 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days and maybe 40% believe in wormholes, warping space-time and virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes then maybe just maybe my believing I saw an unknown craft/object doing some strange shit in the sky I don't fully understand doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison.


As well the hypocrisy is mind boggling because many people who would believe a supposed god created the universe in six days routinely judge other people who claim to have seen an unidentified(unknown)flying(it's relative) object(again it's relative) as crazy or misguided. I find this hard to fathom and it just seems so utterly ridiculous that it defies the imagination, apparently god doesn't believe in other intelligent life or UFO's either... go figure. Then we have that other kind of religion based on supposed science that never actually was and people say they require proof to believe but don't actually have any...  again go figure. The common thread here is people who judge others as crazy for believing without proof despite the fact they don't actually have any real proof either way about much of anything.


It is without a doubt in my mind the most messed up scenario of logic I could possibly image and I'm just not feeling the vulcan type deep logic I expected here. It is a superficial quagmire of the truly illogical where people try to disprove a concept by challenging the credibility of the individual despite the fact they claim the concept must stand on it's own. In effect we have turned science into a pissing contest and while I'm not against such things I still believe it must have it's place in the proper context.


At which point we are left with the question as to why nobody would touch my simple question concerning Inertia with a ten foot pole. That is what is inertia specifically, fundamentally?, I know you want to run and avoid it like the plague and you have no idea where to even start however in this respect I may be able to help. So let's go there, to that place you fear most... I'm sure Mark thinks he is up to it however thinking and believing rarely resemble the true facts of any matter, time will tell. Let's get in on... Brother.


From the Urban Dictionary
Brother: a person whom you are related to. sometimes a role model. sometimes an ass. sometimes a friend. a person who you are stuck being related to until the day you die through good or bad


AC
First:  Your conclusions as to what you think you saw are extraordinary.  Your evidence consists of your personal perceptions.  Human perceptions are highly error prone.  Faulty human perceptions are what cause things like experienced pilots to put a plane into a near vertical stall and keep it there from 35,000 feet to the ocean surface.

People who believe in a hairy fonderer or cosmic muffin will one day have to answer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He will take care of them appropriately.  Much of the rest of what you argue is based on the the gap of the gods logical fallacy.  Science is based on obtaining reliable evidence.  It has the risk of being as wrong as the evidence is consistent.  What it overcomes is postulates that do not hold up to reliable evidence.  It is because it adjusts to reliable evidence as that evidence is found that every year science expands rather than misdirects our feeble understanding of the universe.

Inertia is like many things: an observed behavior. 

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 04, 2015, 07:27:59 AM
@Mark E
Quote
Inertia is like many things: an observed behavior. 


Oh well that explains a lot..... It's  just an observed behavior that's all, thanks for that great insight mark.... well done.



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Jimboot on August 04, 2015, 01:03:31 PM
First:  Your conclusions as to what you think you saw are extraordinary.  Your evidence consists of your personal perceptions.  Human perceptions are highly error prone.  Faulty human perceptions are what cause things like experienced pilots to put a plane into a near vertical stall and keep it there from 35,000 feet to the ocean surface.

People who believe in a hairy fonderer or cosmic muffin will one day have to answer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He will take care of them appropriately.  Much of the rest of what you argue is based on the the gap of the gods logical fallacy.  Science is based on obtaining reliable evidence.  It has the risk of being as wrong as the evidence is consistent.  What it overcomes is postulates that do not hold up to reliable evidence.  It is because it adjusts to reliable evidence as that evidence is found that every year science expands rather than misdirects our feeble understanding of the universe.

Inertia is like many things: an observed behavior.
there's still that whole big bang thing though. Seems to me they're leaving that up to the holy triumphant Godmeiseter. Can't find where the extra energy is? Invent some dark energy. There must be more matter too... ahhaaa dark matter! Oh yeah and black holes . Sorry been watching too much EU stuff.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 04, 2015, 01:55:49 PM
there's still that whole big bang thing though. Seems to me they're leaving that up to the holy triumphant Godmeiseter. Can't find where the extra energy is? Invent some dark energy. There must be more matter too... ahhaaa dark matter! Oh yeah and black holes . Sorry been watching too much EU stuff.
The dark matter and dark energy ideas are just hypotheses.  We observe what we can with all our limitations, form hypotheses, and then look for ways to test those hypotheses.  The dark matter and dark energy hypotheses have been proposed in order to deal with various inconsistent observations.  As we eventually get better observations the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses will either gain evidentiary support or lose out to contradictory evidence.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Jimboot on August 04, 2015, 03:18:35 PM
As we eventually get better observations the dark matter and dark energy hypotheses will either gain evidentiary support or lose out to contradictory evidence.
Haven't the eu guys already done that?
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 04, 2015, 04:03:58 PM
Haven't the eu guys already done that?
AFAIK they have not developed enough evidence to get a consensus going.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 04, 2015, 05:49:24 PM
You guys just keep spinning your wheels but your not going anywhere so maybe it's time we get a grip and do some thought experiments. I like thought experiments because it allows us to play god when doing experiments to see what might happen. Since I am now a god I will not be held to the misconceptions of puny mortals on some backwater planet you call Earth and I will be doing all my experiments in space. Space is not an exception to any rule it is the rule, it is the norm which defines everything else and matter is the exception.

 
In my first experiment I will use a bucket A, a compressed spring C and another identical bucket B in deep space. The compressed spring C is inbetween the buckets A and B which are full of sand and when I release the spring the buckets move in opposite directions. Bucket A on the left moves left away from bucket B and bucket B on the right moves right away from bucket A... equal and opposite. Here we can see in order for A to move left it must act against the inertia of B and likewise in order for B to move right it must act against the inertia of A... equal and opposite. The momentum (mass-velocity) of A and B are the same because the final velocity of A and B is the same and mass is assumed to be constant. We can see that in order for A to move left it must act on or push off of "something" which is B however B has nothing to act against which we would consider tangible, B is not like a wall or a building. The same thought applies to B and in order for it to move right it must act on or push off of "something" which is A.
 

Do you see the problem?, in order for A to move left it must push off of "something" which is B through spring C however B has nothing tangible to hold itself in that position like a wall or a planet because it is free floating in space. Thus we can see there is nothing tangible for B to act on to hold itself in place other than itself. I understand you whacky Earthlings might say "Inertia" is resisting the motion of B however I reject this foolish notion that one can just make up a term to explain something which does not actually explain anything. The fact remains that in order for A to move to the left it must push off of something tangible on some level because universal law dictates that something cannot act on nothing. B cannot act on itself nor can it act on supposedly empty space and it cannot act on nothing so you are only left with one viable solution.

In order for A to move to the left it must push off of B and there is absolutely nothing to hold B in position other than some letters of the alphabet which form the word inertia. Ultimately that is the true extent of your understanding concerning my experiment.... you believe B is held in place in space by some letters of the alphabet.... You are amazing beings.
 
AC
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 04, 2015, 11:15:37 PM
You have spun yourself in quite the circle.  Maybe you should start a step or two earlier:  What do you use to compress the spring in the first place?
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand on August 05, 2015, 12:21:27 AM
I am of the opinion that many of the so called UFO sightings are effects of perspective - light and regular flying objects.

Take the clip below for example, people are claiming "orbs" are flying around in the sky, they seem to be doing impossible manoeuvres . But what it looks like to me when I analyzed the clip is pigeons "birds", with a kind of light halo. The funny thing is that when one of the objects is caught at a closer distance to the camera it looks like a brown and white pigeon with a halo but if when I altered the image to black and white it looks like the outline of a classic saucer.

I surmised that the magnetic properties of the pigeons heads may cause the halo like thing to appear around the head, but I have no real theory as to how, just a thought. Can anyone pick what kind of bird that is if it is not a pigeon.

Someone tell me that pigeon doesn't look very cool with it's halo.  :)

Canada orb clip with haloed pigeon looking things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9sQKrraXeY

To me it appears to be definitely a bird of some kind, and the movements would be effects of perspective, when in 3D the movements would be fairly normal, but in 2D they look "odd". Why do the birds all have halo's, if they are birds that is.

I've seen silver saucer looking things in the daytime on two occasions but they were never doing anything physics defying just cruising along less than chopper speed above the low clouds, I was looking slightly down on them as I am on a mountain, they did not look like choppers though, Distance would have been about 5 to 10 k's no more. They were big. Not bird sized. Could have been choppers with the rotor and the tail obscured by visual effects of distance and sun and what I could see would then look like a saucer, best I can come up with .
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand on August 05, 2015, 12:35:31 AM
But AC nothing in space is at rest and so if the arrangement you mentioned with the two buckets of sand and a spring happened to be moving at great speed ie. draw a center line through the two buckets and spring along the center axis of the spring (I'll specify a coil spring compressed with the bucket openings facing in opposite directions with the spring between), now if the arrangement is moving through space with one bucket leading and one following (spring between compressed) then what would happen is one would slow down and one would speed up but the direction of both would remain the same.

Nothing is at rest in the Universe.

..
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 05, 2015, 02:38:10 AM
But AC nothing in space is at rest and so if the arrangement you mentioned with the two buckets of sand and a spring happened to be moving at great speed ie. draw a center line through the two buckets and spring along the center axis of the spring (I'll specify a coil spring compressed with the bucket openings facing in opposite directions with the spring between), now if the arrangement is moving through space with one bucket leading and one following (spring between compressed) then what would happen is one would slow down and one would speed up but the direction of both would remain the same.

Nothing is at rest in the Universe.

..

Thanks Farmhand, I was going to post something similar.  Nothing "floats" in space at rest.  Even if something started out at rest instantaneously, it would quickly begin to be pulled toward the strongest gravitational field that acted upon it.  People think that if you shot a baseball up into space to an altitude of 600 miles, it would be in orbit...but, that baseball would simply fall back to the earth.  VonBraun launched rockets to this altitude and they did exactly that.  Orbit is a velocity...17,600 mph give or take not an altitude.  So, even our baseball would never be at "rest".  It would go up, and then come down.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand on August 05, 2015, 03:00:37 AM
I do like the thought experiment though Bill, we can imagine the experiment is inside a vacuous space, the result is just as AC says.

However if we want to imagine how the EM drive might be able to work we could imagine a craft being delivered into space by the conventional methods and the EM drive could then be employed. But we would need to take into consideration all relevant factors. I can only guess that if we were to place any craft in a vacuum with no way for the craft to exert any forces on anything else then it wouldn't move.

..

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 05, 2015, 04:34:56 AM
Hey farmhand
Quote
I do like the thought experiment though Bill, we can imagine the experiment is inside a vacuous space, the result is just as AC says. [/size]However if we want to imagine how the EM drive [/size]might[/size] be able to work we could imagine a craft being delivered into space by the conventional methods and the EM drive could then be employed. But we would need to take into consideration all relevant factors. I can only guess that if we were to place [/size]any[/size] craft in a vacuum with no way for the craft to exert any forces on anything else then it wouldn't move.[/size]


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.


Quote
The fact remains that in order for A to move to the left it must push off of something tangible on some level because universal law dictates that something cannot act on nothing. B cannot act on itself nor can it act on supposedly empty space and it cannot act on nothing so you are only left with one viable solution.




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
 
Quote
Nothing "floats" in space at rest.  Even if something started out at rest instantaneously, it would quickly begin to be pulled toward the strongest gravitational field that acted upon it.  People think that if you shot a baseball up into space to an altitude of 600 miles, it would be in orbit...but, that baseball would simply fall back to the earth.  VonBraun launched rockets to this altitude and they did exactly that.  Orbit is a velocity...17,600 mph give or take not an altitude.  So, even our baseball would never be at "rest".  It would go up, and then come down.



@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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: oscillipoint 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?
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian 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
 
 
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand 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.

..
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE 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.

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxRdNj0_8JU)".  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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock 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 (http://rhythmodynamics.com/index_en.htm).

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE 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 (http://rhythmodynamics.com/index_en.htm).

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.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock 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’s 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
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: tinman on August 06, 2015, 03:33:44 PM
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 external or outside force acting on the boat to give it a net motion.

Gravock

Rock-et motor
The ejection of mass-nothing more,nothing less.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 06, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Rock-et motor
The ejection of mass-nothing more,nothing less.

Wrong!  A rocket doesn't eject mass in opposite directions to achieve motion as is being done with throwing rocks from a boat in opposite directions.  Ejecting mass in opposite directions from a rocket simultaneously or throwing rocks of equal mass from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions doesn't induce a net motion (the forces are cancelled).  However, throwing rocks of equal mass in opposite directions at different times does induce a net motion through phase displacement, which is motion without inertia or resistance.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2015, 03:58:11 PM
Wrong!  A rocket doesn't eject mass in opposite directions to achieve motion as is being done with throwing rocks from a boat in opposite directions.  Ejecting mass in opposite directions from a rocket simultaneously or throwing rocks of equal mass from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions doesn't induce a net motion (the forces are cancelled).  However, throwing rocks of equal mass in opposite directions at different times does induce a net motion through phase displacement, which is motion without inertia or resistance.

Gravock
Rockets operate on the basis of Newton's Third Law:  They eject propellant in one direction creating a reaction force that accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 06, 2015, 04:06:50 PM
Rockets operate on the basis of Newton's Third Law:  They eject propellant in one direction creating a reaction force that accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction.

ROFLMAO.  Yes, and this is the reason why a rocket isn't the same as throwing rocks in opposite directions simultaneously from a boat in order to achieve motion.  According to Newton's Third Law, the forces should be cancelled when throwing rocks in opposite directions from a boat, but this isn't always the case as previously shown by the boat/rock example.


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
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
The boat example does not negate inertia.  It demonstrates it.  Let us assume that the water is frictionless as was stated.  The boat accelerates in the opposite direction of each ejected mass.  When the first mass is ejected, the boat attains a velocity proportional to the ejected mass and inversely proportional to the remaining mass of the boat.  When the second mass is ejected, the boat velocity changes by an amount proportional to the speed of the second mass and inversely proportional to the newly reduced mass of the boat.  If the two ejected masses are equal and their velocities relative to the external frame of reference are equal and opposite then the boat comes to rest albeit at a position that has shifted from the starting point.  If an equal amount of energy is imparted to each mass as it is thrown, then the boat ends up moving at a low speed in the same direction as the first rock was thrown.  This is all because of Newton's three laws.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2015, 04:17:25 PM
ROFLMAO.  Yes, and this is the reason why a rocket isn't the same as throwing rocks in opposite directions simultaneously from a boat in order to achieve motion.  According to Newton's Third Law, the forces should be cancelled when throwing rocks in opposite directions from a boat, but this isn't always the case as previously shown by the boat/rock example.


Gravock
I get the idea that you are having trouble with integral calculus.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 06, 2015, 04:47:09 PM
The boat example does not negate inertia.  It demonstrates it.  Let us assume that the water is frictionless as was stated.  The boat accelerates in the opposite direction of each ejected mass.  When the first mass is ejected, the boat attains a velocity proportional to the ejected mass and inversely proportional to the remaining mass of the boat.  When the second mass is ejected, the boat velocity changes by an amount proportional to the speed of the second mass and inversely proportional to the newly reduced mass of the boat.  If the two ejected masses are equal and their velocities relative to the external frame of reference are equal and opposite then the boat comes to rest albeit at a position that has shifted from the starting point.  If an equal amount of energy is imparted to each mass as it is thrown, then the boat ends up moving at a low speed in the same direction as the first rock was thrown.  This is all because of Newton's three laws.

Read the publication MarkE.  It says, "And suppose such process were sufficiently prolonged and had wave nature, i.e. were invisible and proceeded without the loss of mass?"  You need to improve on your reading comprehension.  It's one of the reasons why you always take things out of context and mix things together that was meant to be separate from one another.  The below comic is a good illustration in how MarkE the downer is disconnected, as shown by his replies.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 06, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
I get the idea that you are having trouble with integral calculus.

I get the idea you can't grasp the elementary truths of this world.  Integral calculus doesn't even come into the equation in the boat/rock example, since the mass of the boat was to remain the same throughout the throwing of the rocks.  One false hood or wrong assumption (mass being reduced) led to a greater false hood (integral calculus).  LOL.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 06, 2015, 05:57:22 PM
@Gravityblock
Quote
A rocket doesn't eject mass in opposite directions to achieve motion as is
being done with throwing rocks from a boat in opposite directions.  Ejecting
mass in opposite directions from a rocket simultaneously or throwing rocks of
equal mass from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions doesn't induce a
net motion (the forces are cancelled).  However, throwing rocks of equal mass in
opposite directions at different times does induce a net motion through phase
displacement, which is motion without inertia or resistance.

Cancellation also relates to Gravity. If we drop a lead ball and a cork ball of equal size the force of gravity is much greater on the lead ball having more mass. The force of Gravity is greater on the lead ball because it has more mass however the counter-force of Inertia is also greater for the same reason. When we drop our balls in the same instant from the same height gravity accelerates the ball downward as Inertia resists this acceleration and they cancel... which is why the lead ball and the cork ball hit the ground at the same time.
 
The quagmire here is that we conceive that Gravity must be a force acting between two objects causing them to accelerate towards one another . If Gravity is a force causing the objects to accelerate towards each other and Inertia is a counter-force which resists this acceleration then how can this counter-force apply itself on a free falling body?. A force cannot act on itself in itself which is absurd thus it would seem to me the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally. In my mind it is absurd that anyone would presume the property of Inertia just is or that it is simply a property of mass. All motion/acceleration and the resistance to motion/acceleration must always relate to tangible forces on some level at some point in time. Thus when someone tells me inertia is just a property of mass I consider there intellect to be on the same level as people who speak of something from nothing and perpetual motion machines because something cannot act on nothing... it is not an option.
 
@Mark E
Science is not a religion and your quoting your scripture holds no weight unless you can explain real world examples in a tangible way. Inertia amounts to something acting on nothing and as I said that is not an option because it is simply a different flavor of fairy tale... nothing more.
 
AC
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 06, 2015, 06:28:18 PM
@Gravityblock
Cancellation also relates to Gravity. If we drop a lead ball and a cork ball of equal size the force of gravity is much greater on the lead ball having more mass. The force of Gravity is greater on the lead ball because it has more mass however the counter-force of Inertia is also greater for the same reason. When we drop our balls in the same instant from the same height gravity accelerates the ball downward as Inertia resists this acceleration and they cancel... which is why the lead ball and the cork ball hit the ground at the same time.
 
The quagmire here is that we conceive that Gravity must be a force acting between two objects causing them to accelerate towards one another . If Gravity is a force causing the objects to accelerate towards each other and Inertia is a counter-force which resists this acceleration then how can this counter-force apply itself on a free falling body?. A force cannot act on itself in itself which is absurd thus it would seem to me the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally. In my mind it is absurd that anyone would presume the property of Inertia just is or that it is simply a property of mass. All motion/acceleration and the resistance to motion/acceleration must always relate to tangible forces on some level at some point in time. Thus when someone tells me inertia is just a property of mass I consider there intellect to be on the same level as people who speak of something from nothing and perpetual motion machines because something cannot act on nothing... it is not an option.
 
AC

Well said!  What you're saying isn't much different than what RD is saying.

According to RD, an object has a ‘feel’ of inertia when force is applied not to all object’s elements at once, but to some of them.  If it were applied to all at once as is the case with gravitation, the feeling of inertia would be absent.  I agree, the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 06, 2015, 07:03:35 PM
Thus when someone tells me inertia is just a property of mass I consider there intellect to be on the same level as people who speak of something from nothing and perpetual motion machines because something cannot act on nothing... it is not an option.
 
AC

Many things are beyond a person's scope of understanding not because of their poor reasoning power, but because of the narrowness of their scope.  MarkE and Dan the downer are good examples of this.  The narrowness of a person's scope can lead to misunderstandings and absurdities.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 06, 2015, 07:44:05 PM
@Gravityblock
Quote
Many things are beyond a person's scope of understanding not because of their
poor reasoning power, but because of the narrowness of their scope.  MarkE and
Dan the downer are good examples of this.  The narrowness of a person's scope
can lead to misunderstandings and absurdities.

Edit: my last post was just nitpicking
I think this is where theory and philosophy come into play because we cannot build what we cannot imagine. We can do all the experiments we want however if we cannot exceed our own limitations then we are not going anywhere.
Quote
For more information, see Rhythmodynamics of Nature (http://rhythmodynamics.com/index_en.htm).
Awesome link...Thanks
 
AC

 

 

 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 01:06:37 AM
I get the idea you can't grasp the elementary truths of this world.  Integral calculus doesn't even come into the equation in the boat/rock example, since the mass of the boat was to remain the same throughout the throwing of the rocks.  One false hood or wrong assumption (mass being reduced) led to a greater false hood (integral calculus).  LOL.

Gravock
Actually integral calculus is very important to the example.  The two separate actions of ejecting the two rocks under the conditions stipulated result in net changes of velocity: integrals of acceleration.  Had no rock been ejected, the boat would have had some position versus time profile in the reference frame.  Ejecting each rock alters the motion of the boat.  In the simplest case, the boat would have been initially stationary in the frame.  The momentum of either ejected rock in the reference frame and the ratios of the masses after the ejection determines the total change in velocity of the boat.  The boat's position integrates that change in velocity forever, as it does all subsequent changes in velocity.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 01:22:46 AM
@Gravityblock
Cancellation also relates to Gravity. If we drop a lead ball and a cork ball of equal size the force of gravity is much greater on the lead ball having more mass. The force of Gravity is greater on the lead ball because it has more mass however the counter-force of Inertia is also greater for the same reason. When we drop our balls in the same instant from the same height gravity accelerates the ball downward as Inertia resists this acceleration and they cancel... which is why the lead ball and the cork ball hit the ground at the same time.
 
The quagmire here is that we conceive that Gravity must be a force acting between two objects causing them to accelerate towards one another . If Gravity is a force causing the objects to accelerate towards each other and Inertia is a counter-force which resists this acceleration then how can this counter-force apply itself on a free falling body?. A force cannot act on itself in itself which is absurd thus it would seem to me the Gravity-Inertia relationship must both relate to external forces acting on the mass internally. In my mind it is absurd that anyone would presume the property of Inertia just is or that it is simply a property of mass. All motion/acceleration and the resistance to motion/acceleration must always relate to tangible forces on some level at some point in time. Thus when someone tells me inertia is just a property of mass I consider there intellect to be on the same level as people who speak of something from nothing and perpetual motion machines because something cannot act on nothing... it is not an option.
 
@Mark E
Science is not a religion and your quoting your scripture holds no weight unless you can explain real world examples in a tangible way. Inertia amounts to something acting on nothing and as I said that is not an option because it is simply a different flavor of fairy tale... nothing more.
 
AC
Round and round we go.  Unless you reject Newton's Laws: force accelerates mass.  The property of inertia simply expresses that relationship.  If you wish to insist that inertia is a force then without me specifying a location, kindly tell me how many Newton's a 1kg mass exerts, and in what direction that force vector points.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 07, 2015, 02:12:55 AM

@Mark E


Quote
Round and round we go. 
Round and round we go indeed however I had to get off the merry-go-round a long time ago because it made me dizzy,lol.



Quote
Unless you reject Newton's Laws: force accelerates mass.
I accept the fact a tangible force is required to accelerate any mass however I also accept the fact this accelerating force is resisted.... did Newton happen to mention the fact one force acting on a mass can only be resisted by another force?.



Quote
If you wish to insist that inertia is a force then without me specifying a location, kindly tell me how many Newton's a 1kg mass exerts, and in what direction that force vector points.
I have been down that road twisting and turning this way and that and I always ended right back where I started...go figure. Thus I choose not to participate in such things, as you say round and round.



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand on August 07, 2015, 03:13:02 AM
This is a very interesting thread, I could read this stuff all day.

I think some aspects kind of come back to "nothing is at rest in the Universe", wouldn't everything already have some momentum as well as inertia ?

We all on Earth are moving through space so we must have momentum.

As far as building vehicles that can carry people to other Galaxies and even to the outer reaches of our own, I'm not convinced it would be safe to power vehicles at high speed through space without some kind of protection from collision with objects ect. Great speed may overcome problems with time but introduce other problems.

We should remember there are different definitions for a "vacuum". I think the only true definition of the word vacuum on it's own is 2, a: in bold, unless a "partial vacuum" is specified or "the vacuum of space" is specified then - vacuum means "a space absolutely devoid of matter", when we are talking of deep space we are talking about a "partial vacuum" to some degree, surely. Aren't we ? The differences between 2,a: and 2,b: would be small but they would exist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vacuum

Quote
Full Definition of VACUUM
1
:  emptiness of space

2
a :  a space absolutely devoid of matter
b :  a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (as an air pump)
c :  a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure

3
a :  a state or condition resembling a vacuum :  void <the power vacuum in Indochina after the departure of the French — Norman Cousins>
b :  a state of isolation from outside influences <people who live in a vacuum…so that the world outside them is of no moment — W. S. Maugham>

4
:  a device creating or utilizing a partial vacuum; especially :  vacuum cleaner


..
Is it even possible to create a true vacuum ? I would be surprised if it is. Is this statement accurate ? In interstellar space, vacuums can approach 1 molecule per liter, which for all practical intents and purposes is perfect vacuum.

..

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 05:15:00 AM
@Mark E

Round and round we go indeed however I had to get off the merry-go-round a long time ago because it made me dizzy,lol.


I accept the fact a tangible force is required to accelerate any mass however I also accept the fact this accelerating force is resisted.... did Newton happen to mention the fact one force acting on a mass can only be resisted by another force?.


I have been down that road twisting and turning this way and that and I always ended right back where I started...go figure. Thus I choose not to participate in such things, as you say round and round.



AC
If you cannot measure one thing in the same units as a second thing that you claim the first thing is, then you have a tough row to hoe trying to establish that the first thing is actually the same as the second.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 07, 2015, 05:23:18 AM
This is a very interesting thread, I could read this stuff all day.

I think some aspects kind of come back to "nothing is at rest in the Universe", wouldn't everything already have some momentum as well as inertia ?

We all on Earth are moving through space so we must have momentum.

As far as building vehicles that can carry people to other Galaxies and even to the outer reaches of our own, I'm not convinced it would be safe to power vehicles at high speed through space without some kind of protection from collision with objects ect. Great speed may overcome problems with time but introduce other problems.

We should remember there are different definitions for a "vacuum". I think the only true definition of the word vacuum on it's own is 2, a: in bold, unless a "partial vacuum" is specified or "the vacuum of space" is specified then - vacuum means "a space absolutely devoid of matter", when we are talking of deep space we are talking about a "partial vacuum" to some degree, surely. Aren't we ? The differences between 2,a: and 2,b: would be small but they would exist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vacuum (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vacuum)
 

..
Is it even possible to create a true vacuum ? I would be surprised if it is. Is this statement accurate ? In interstellar space, vacuums can approach 1 molecule per liter, which for all practical intents and purposes is perfect vacuum.

..

This is why Dyson is building vacuums in space.  They are perfect...or nearly so. (Some would say they really suck)

Just kidding.

But seriously, I do not think there is anything in nature as a perfect vacuum, sort of like using the word instantaneous.  Neither exist but, some things get pretty close.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 08:23:09 AM
Actually integral calculus is very important to the example. The two separate actions of ejecting the two rocks under the conditions stipulated result in net changes of velocity: integrals of acceleration.  Had no rock been ejected, the boat would have had some position versus time profile in the reference frame.  Ejecting each rock alters the motion of the boat.  In the simplest case, the boat would have been initially stationary in the frame.  The momentum of either ejected rock in the reference frame and the ratios of the masses after the ejection determines the total change in velocity of the boat.  The boat's position integrates that change in velocity forever, as it does all subsequent changes in velocity.

No MarkE!  Here's a video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DwUN38peRc) since you apparently don't have the ability to properly visualize something in your head.  The first rock thrown determines the velocity's direction.  The second rock thrown in the opposite direction stops the motion of the boat, and the process repeats itself with a net motion.  Remember, in our hypothetical, the mass of the boat remains unchanged after the ejection of the rocks and there is no friction between the boat and the water.  It has nothing to do with the reduced mass of the boat after the rocks are thrown, nor does it have anything to do with the ratios of the masses after the ejection.  In other words, integral calculus doesn't apply in our hypothetical.  It's as simple as moving the boat 100ft. by throwing a rock, then stopping the boat by throwing a rock in the opposite direction, and then repeating the process over and over again.  Don't let the narrowness of your scope over complicate things by introducing ideas that have no relevancy to a particular case, such as integral calculus, which will cause an improper visualization.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 09:29:18 AM
No MarkE!  Here's a video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DwUN38peRc) since you apparently don't have the ability to properly visualize something in your head.  The first rock thrown determines the velocity's direction.  The second rock thrown in the opposite direction stops the motion of the boat, and the process repeats itself with a net motion.
IOW: The position is the integral of the velocity, just as I described.
Quote

 Remember, in our hypothetical, the mass of the boat remains unchanged after the ejection of the rocks and there is no friction between the boat and the water.  It has nothing to do with the reduced mass of the boat after the rocks are thrown, nor does it have anything to do with the ratios of the masses after the ejection.
There you are absolutely wrong.  Let us use two examples:

Mass of the boat plus occupants:  100kg
Mass of each rock: 2kg
Ejection speed of the first rock with respect to the frame of reference:  10m/s
Case 1: Ejection speeed of the second rock with respect to the frame of reference: -10m/s
Case 2: Ejection speed of the second rock with respect to the boat: -10m/s
Initial condition:  Boat is at rest.

Eject first rock to the right, velocity change to the boat is: 10m/s * 2kg + Vchange_boat * (100kg + 2kg) = 0  Vchange_boat = -10m/s*2kg/(102kg)
Boat position now integrates at -0.19608 m/s.
Some time later the second rock is ejected.

Case 1: Rock is ejected left with respect to the frame of reference at -10m/s.
Velocity change to the boat is:  (-10m/s - Vstart )* 2kg + Vchange_boat * 100kg = 0  Vchange_boat = (10m/s - 0.196m/s)*2kg/(100kg)
Boat position now integrates at -0.19608m/s + 9.804m/s * 2kg/100kg = 0.0.  The boat is stopped.  The first rock is moving rightward with respect to the frame of reference at the same speed that the second rock is moving leftward, the boat is at rest in the frame of reference and the net momentum sums to the initial value of zero.

Case 2: Rock is ejected left with respect to the boat at -10m/s.
Velocity change to the boat is:  -10m/s* 2kg + Vchange_boat * 100kg = 0  Vchange_boat = 10m/s*2kg/(100kg)
Boat position now integrates at -0.19608m/s + 10m/s * 2kg/100kg = 0.00392m/s.  The boat is drifting rightward.  The total momentum is:

-10.19608m/s*2kg + 0.00392m/s*100kg +10.0m/s*2kg = 0.0m/s*kg.  CoM is again satisfied and the boat position will integrate from the point that the second rock was thrown rightward at 0.00392m/s indefinitely.

If you had more rocks to start with you could repeat this process electing how hard you throw each propellant rock, and stepping the velocity accordingly.  If you started with 900kg of rocks instead of 4kg the initial velocity change magnitudes would be about 1/10th of the cases above and, the distance travelled in any interval would similarly be about 1/10th of the cases above.  Integral calculus absolutely applies.
Quote

  In other words, integral calculus doesn't apply in our hypothetical.  It's as simple as moving the boat 100ft. by throwing a rock, then stopping the boat by throwing a rock in the opposite direction, and then repeating the process over and over again.  Don't let the narrowness of your scope over complicate things by introducing ideas that have no relevancy to a particular case, such as integral calculus, which will cause an improper visualization.

Gravock
Doctor heal thyself.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 10:31:11 AM
Integral calculus absolutely applies.  Doctor heal thyself.

Integral calculus absolutely applies if you want to form an improper visualization.  You're the one in need of a healing, not me.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 11:14:35 AM
IOW: The position is the integral of the velocity, just as I described.There you are absolutely wrong.  Let us use two examples:

Mass of the boat plus occupants:  100kg
Mass of each rock: 2kg
Ejection speed of the first rock with respect to the frame of reference:  10m/s
Case 1: Ejection speeed of the second rock with respect to the frame of reference: -10m/s
Case 2: Ejection speed of the second rock with respect to the boat: -10m/s
Initial condition:  Boat is at rest.

Eject first rock to the right, velocity change to the boat is: 10m/s * 2kg + Vchange_boat * (100kg + 2kg) = 0  Vchange_boat = -10m/s*2kg/(102kg)
Boat position now integrates at -0.19608 m/s.
Some time later the second rock is ejected.

How does ejecting a 2kg rock from the boat increase the boat's mass from 100kg to 102kg?

Also, why are you using -10m/s before the 2 second rock is ejected to integrate the boat's position at -0.19608m/s?  Is this how you do math MarkE?  Come on, get it right........then we can see how it draws an improper visualization.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 11:54:10 AM
How does ejecting a 2kg rock from the boat increase the boat's mass from 100kg to 102kg?

Also, why are you using -10m/s before the 2 second rock is ejected to integrate the boat's position at -0.19608m/s?  Is this how you do math MarkE?  Come on, get it right........then we can see how it draws an improper visualization.

Gravock
I have shown my work.  Once again:  The boat and its occupants are 100kg of mass.  Each rock is 2kg.  That's a total of 104kg.  When the first rock is ejected its change in momentum is identically matched by an opposing change in momentum of the boat plus the second rock mass of: 102kg.   In order to satisfy CoM, the change of 2kg moving to the right relative to the frame of reference at 10m/s must be identically matched by the remaining 102kg moving to the left at 2kg*10m/s / 102kg = ~0.19608m/s.

If the boat had started out with a much bigger pile of propellant rocks, say 900kg, then when the first rock is ejected, the boat would move to the left at: 2kg*10m/s / 998kg = ~ 0.020m/s, roughly one tenth the speed as in the first case.  As the pile of propellant goes down, the change in velocity of the boat with each uniform toss gets larger and larger.

If you think I have made any mistakes, then you are free to show your own work.


Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 12:26:20 PM
If the boat had started out with a much bigger pile of propellant rocks, say 900kg, then when the first rock is ejected, the boat would move to the left at: 2kg*10m/s / 998kg = ~ 0.020m/s, roughly one tenth the speed as in the first case.  As the pile of propellant goes down, the change in velocity of the boat with each uniform toss gets larger and larger.

If you think I have made any mistakes, then you are free to show your own work.

According to you, the boat is oscillating back and forth away from the starting point after both rocks are ejected, and the distance the boat travels between the oscillations grows larger and larger with each additional cycle of rocks being thrown.  This is not in-line with the original hypothetical as shown by the video demonstration.  Your words have already proven it gives the wrong visualization.  Thank you!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 01:13:32 PM
@all,

In the hypothetical, the process proceeded without the loss of the boat's mass after the ejection of the rocks.  MarkE however wants to ignore this part of the process in the hypothetical so he can give a false perception that the use of integral calculus absolutely applies.  However, by doing this, he'll form a wrong visualization.  Velocity, mass, and time has no relevancy in the hypothetical, since the second rock is thrown after the boat travels a distance of 100m.  The second rock thrown will then stop the boat.  The only thing that has relevancy here is the distance the boat travels.  So, there's absolutely no reason to use the position to integrate the velocity in regards to the original hypothetical when distance is the only thing relevant in the hypothetical.

In the hypothetical, the mass is not given and the velocity is unknown without the value of the mass.  Since the velocity and mass is unknown, then so is the time it took the boat to travel 100m.  The only thing given in the hypothetical is the distance the boat travels before the next rock is thrown in the opposite direction.  This is because the distance is the only thing relevant in the hypothetical.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 01:40:32 PM
@all,

In the hypothetical, the process proceeded without the loss of the boat's mass after the ejection of the rocks.  MarkE however wants to ignore this part of the process in the hypothetical so he can give a false perception that the use of integral calculus absolutely applies.  However, by doing this, he'll form a wrong visualization.  Velocity, mass, and time has no relevancy in the hypothetical, since the second rock is thrown after the boat travels a distance of 100m.  The second rock thrown will then stop the boat.  So, there is no reason to use the position to integrate the velocity in regards to the original hypothetical.

Gravock
You have not shown any error in my analysis or math.  You cannot eject mass from something and still have the same mass as when you started.  Position is the integral of the velocity.  The velocity is in turn the integral of the acceleration.  The boat accelerates due to reaction force from accelerating each propellant rock as it is ejected.  Each rock that is ejected reduces the remaining mass on the boat.  As I have shown: the net change in velocity that results from each ejection gets bigger and bigger as the boat plus remaining propellant mass shrinks.  Where the mass of each rock is small with respect to the mass of the boat the magnitude of adjacent velocity steps is small but real.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 02:00:57 PM
You have not shown any error in my analysis or math.  You cannot eject mass from something and still have the same mass as when you started.  Position is the integral of the velocity.  The velocity is in turn the integral of the acceleration.  The boat accelerates due to reaction force from accelerating each propellant rock as it is ejected.  Each rock that is ejected reduces the remaining mass on the boat.  As I have shown: the net change in velocity that results from each ejection gets bigger and bigger as the boat plus remaining propellant mass shrinks.  Where the mass of each rock is small with respect to the mass of the boat the magnitude of adjacent velocity steps is small but real.

MarkE,

In a hypothetical, you can eject mass from something and still have the same mass as when you started, thus the reason it's called a hypothetical (are you really this disconnected?).  In the real world, a person in a second boat could be placing rocks in the boat as they're being ejected in order to maintain the same mass of the boat.  As I have shown in my previous post, the velocity, mass, and time are irrelevant in the hypothetical since the mass of the boat is unknown and remains unchanged during the ejection of the rocks.  The only value given that has relevancy in the hypothetical is the distance the boat travels before the second rock is thrown.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 02:58:44 PM
MarkE,

In a hypothetical, you can eject mass from something and still have the same mass as when you started, thus the reason it's called a hypothetical (are you really this disconnected?).
LOL, you eject the mass and keep it do you?
Quote
  In the real world, a person in a second boat could be placing rocks in the boat as they're being ejected in order to maintain the same mass of the boat.
There are multiple problems with that proposal.  The first is: Some energy must be expended in order for them to track the movements of the first boat so that they are in place to transfer new rocks.  The second is that the act of transferring rocks from one boat to the other effects a momentum exchange.
Quote
  As I have shown in my previous post, the velocity, mass, and time are irrelevant in the hypothetical since the mass of the boat is unknown and remains unchanged during the ejection of the rocks.
You have done no such thing.  The mass of the boat includes the propellant that remains at any given moment.  If the boat starts out with a single 2kg rock or a million 2kg rocks, the momentum of the laden boat changes equally and oppositely to the momentum change of the ejected rock.  The smaller the mass is of the ejected rock to the remaining mass of the boat plus all of its contents, the smaller the proportional velocity change of the boat versus the ejected rock.
Quote
The only thing given in the hypothetical is the distance the boat travels before the second rock is thrown.  How are you going to apply integral calculus when the only values given in the hypothetical is the distance?
You are so completely lost.
Quote

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 03:36:44 PM
Alright, moving on.....

Since we're now talking about mass and momentum, here's a device which demonstrates action without reaction made in the form of a beam balance.  The balls of steel having a different weight placed in jets exert no influence on the beam balance (first image below).  Here's a video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sZWjfucE0) of a similar beam balance device with no counter reaction (second image below). So, if a boat had 20 jets holding 20 rocks, then the mass of the boat would remain the same throughout the process of ejecting all 20 rocks from the boat.  There's also no issues with momentum in this example.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 03:50:30 PM
Miss Information is being joined by Miss Direction today.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 03:57:17 PM
Video on the Self synchronization of a system (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkEirr4bWtw).  Like I said before MarkE, randomness is the ultimate order in the universe.

Analogy with vibration mechanics is apparent with the only modification that in rhythmodynamics wave sources have common movable, floating in wave medium foundation in the form of a standing wave which ensures the sources’ dynamic link through the wave medium itself. If this foundation (standing wave) shifts for some reason, the sources ‘mounted’ on it shift as well. This process may have a different description: if foundation, i.e. the standing wave linking the sources, cannot ensure synchronicity between the sources a driving force emerges shifting the foundation to such speed regime in which there won’t be any need to eliminate the phase displacement between the sources.
 
The same happens in the central gravitational field: the field imposes the phase displacement and thus breaks synchronicity of the system → foundation (standing wave) moves and ‘drags’ in its wake the sources → the trend to speed increase is due to phase shift increasing in time which is manifest until velocity is reached at which synchronicity of the system’s sources is possible. If the system is restrained from motion the standing wave passes efforts from a source to a source aimed at reaching synchronicity.
 
Synchronicity is possible either in the absence of phase displacement or in motion.  But the phase displacement is firmly secured by gravitational field which prevents nullification of the phase shift. As a result, the system is seeking synchronicity in motion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 04:00:48 PM
Miss Information is being joined by Miss Direction today.

Your reply isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal.  It is you who is doing the misinforming and misdirection.  Don't psychologically project what you're doing, off onto me.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 07, 2015, 04:18:20 PM



 Mentalblock?
     Come on you pair, 's a pity Gottfried and Isaac aren't still about
they'd have had it sorted!
          John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 04:25:46 PM
Your reply isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal.  It is you who is doing the misinforming and misdirection.  Don't psychologically project what you're doing, off onto me.

Gravock
So much baffle gab, so little time.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 07, 2015, 04:41:34 PM
So much baffle gab, so little time.

MarkE doesn't have time to post a scientific or mathematical rebuttal, but he has the time to make meaningless posts and to spam this thread, such as his latest reply. LOL

It is you who is producing the baffle gab without a scientific or mathematical rebuttal.  Another psychological projection.


@minnie, thanks for your wonderful contribution in helping marke spam this thread

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 07, 2015, 05:02:12 PM
@Gravityblock
Quote

The postulates of modern physics and theories based on
them do  not allow for absolute notions: energy, speed, time, frame of
reference. The  postulates of rhythmodynamics and wave geometry, on the
contrary, suggest  impossibility of creating a clear physical picture of the
world without the carrier of constructs in geometry and wave medium in
rhythmodynamics. The  advantage of rhythmodynamics’ approach is in its ability
to use both absolute  and relative notions. For example, the objects’ speed in
wave medium is  absolute, the speed between the objects is relative.

I like this quote from the link you posted. I have found this to be true and there is little progress to be made in examining local superficial events if one is unable to see the big picture. It should come as no surprise that the true nature of the Primary Fields and Inertia are completely unknown to science. My premise is simple... if it don't work then don't do it thus I reject the popular understanding of how things are supposed to work.
 
Concerning the boat and rocks experiment, I think it's important to see the contradiction in terms. In science they try to make absolute statements such as if I throw the two rocks in opposite directions there in no net motion in either direction. The contradiction here is that it is implied that there can never be any net motion under any circumstances however this is obviously not true. As such it is seldom if ever a matter of facts but moreso the context in which they apply or do not apply. In effect people tend to distort the facts to suit their own beliefs ultimately leading to the religion of modern science. It is no wonder 47% of scientists have falsified data or know someone who has in order to substantiate their beliefs. In essense it's a quagmire and is seldom if ever as it seems on the surface.
 
The fact is we may have one truth in one context which is completely false in another as we see with the boat and rocks experiment. So we must ask what is the truth when the truth is variable dependent on the context in which it applies. As such my tool for success is not a textbook but thought experiments to determine my own truth for myself.
It's a whacky world.

 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 08:16:52 PM
MarkE doesn't have time to post a scientific or mathematical rebuttal, but he has the time to make meaningless posts and to spam this thread, such as his latest reply. LOL

It is you who is producing the baffle gab without a scientific or mathematical rebuttal.  Another psychological projection.


@minnie, thanks for your wonderful contribution in helping marke spam this thread

Gravock
LOL
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 07, 2015, 08:53:31 PM



   Gravityblock it's like a children's pantomime when you're involved.
   Oh yes it is, oh  no it isn't!
   At least in the end I managed to see why pi was 4.
     John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 07, 2015, 11:15:29 PM
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice
"You must be", said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here"
Alices Adentures in OUland
 
AC
 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 08, 2015, 02:12:48 AM
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice
"You must be", said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here"
Alices Adentures in OUland
 
AC

I thought it was the hatter that was mad?  I'll have to read that book again.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 08, 2015, 05:48:22 AM
Hey Bill


It is strange that anyone here would argue one or the other who occupies these forums might be mad when 99% of the world out there would consider all of us mad for being here and debating such things. Thus we may come to understand we here are not them and we are more like each other than any one of them out there whether we want to admit it or not. I find that comforting in a strange way because mad is relative and make no mistake they out there are mad.


AC




Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: SoManyWires on August 08, 2015, 08:43:08 AM
Hey Bill


It is strange that anyone here would argue one or the other who occupies these forums might be mad when 99% of the world out there would consider all of us mad for being here and debating such things. Thus we may come to understand we here are not them and we are more like each other than any one of them out there whether we want to admit it or not. I find that comforting in a strange way because mad is relative and make no mistake they out there are mad.


AC

this place appears to have its healthy share of sick people, yes you are correct at noticing that.
there are some good examples worth the thoughts though. so its not a total loss when it comes to learning something useful
because of the knowledgable people and other device concept real time developers offering their time for other future potentials.

inspiring noticing the level of effort they build their projects with.
and even just some of the yet to be tried concepts.

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 08, 2015, 10:14:35 AM
Hey Bill


It is strange that anyone here would argue one or the other who occupies these forums might be mad when 99% of the world out there would consider all of us mad for being here and debating such things. Thus we may come to understand we here are not them and we are more like each other than any one of them out there whether we want to admit it or not. I find that comforting in a strange way because mad is relative and make no mistake they out there are mad.


AC

Well, of course I agree.  The guy that decides if I am mad or not might indeed be madder than me.  So, who gets to decide?

That is the question.

I have no problem with our current debate. One of us is wrong, or, both of us are wrong, or, both of us are right.  I, of course, think I am correct but, that does not mean that I am.

I had a thought today at work...here goes.

OK, so we have atoms making up all matter and, the higher the density, the more atoms there are.  So, what if, all of those spinning electrons in orbit exhibit a type of gyroscopic precession (or resistance to movement) but, since they are all scattered about and not aligned, the resistance would not be organized to resist in a left or right movement.  What I mean is, if matter has all of these spinning particles, maybe that is where the resistance to movement comes from?  So, in deep space, in your example, they can push off from each other because of the rotation of their fundamental particles that make up the matter in the first place?  This really might not be too far off if you think about it.  We know that gyroscopes work in space so, on an atomic scale, this might be what is really happening?

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 08, 2015, 05:11:44 PM
Bill
Quote
OK, so we have atoms making up all matter and, the higher the density, the more atoms there are.  So, what if, all of those spinning electrons in orbit exhibit a type of gyroscopic precession (or resistance to movement) but, since they are all scattered about and not aligned, the resistance would not be organized to resist in a left or right movement.  What I mean is, if matter has all of these spinning particles, maybe that is where the resistance to movement comes from?  So, in deep space, in your example, they can push off from each other because of the rotation of their fundamental particles that make up the matter in the first place?  This really might not be too far off if you think about it.  We know that gyroscopes work in space so, on an atomic scale, this might be what is really happening?




What you are suggesting sounds similar to my thoughts and Inertia implies that the parts of a body have the ability to act on themselves. I find it strange that more have not questioned the true nature of these effects. As well if a body has the ability to apply a force to "resist" an acceleration in itself then the alter ego is that it may be able to apply a force to "assist" an acceleration in itself. Resist and assist are simply the same forces acting in a different direction.




In any case I cannot see the logic in someone saying... no body may act upon itself even if we know Inertia does.




AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 09, 2015, 05:20:45 PM
I thought I would share a lesson in perspective I learned early on which goes a long way towards understanding.


First look around the room at any objects that may be present and make a mental note of how you perceive them. The popular view is that it is simply an object however we know they are an aggregate of smaller particles and fields in incredible motion. As well when we see an object we perceive that it is tangible when there is little tangibility to it because it is mostly empty space at the particle-field level.



Here is the perceptual problem most of us inherently have. Imagine you have a white piece of paper and we will call all that white stuff empty space. Now draw a big black circle in the middle of the page and we will call this tangible matter... do you see the problem?. We see the big black circle as tangible matter and we see it is surrounded by empty space however what we seldom understand is the relationship between them.



For instance the area of black versus white on our page has changed from when it was empty or all white. The area occupied by our black circle is no longer white therefore we must acknowledge the fact that more black-matter means less white-empty space. As such any properties we relate to any volume of space may be due to the fact more matter is present in that volume or less empty space is present in that volume and vice versa. We must ask is the change in properties due to more matter being present as we assumed or is it due to the fact less empty space is present because it is occupied by matter?. Fundamentally more black must mean less white and by drawing our black circle on our white page the page has changed in not one way but in two ways... there is more black "and" less white.

There are always two sides to every coin.




Now we have another problem, in order for energy to move from point A to point B then it must occupy every point in between. Thus if energy is truly conserved then the energy radiated from every star in the known universe must be present in our supposed "empty space" to a greater or lesser degree at every point. So we must ask is our white paper representing empty space truly"empty"? and if black-matter must displace white-space then energy must have been displaced in the process.




AC





Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 09, 2015, 08:02:58 PM
Video on the Self synchronization of a system (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkEirr4bWtw).  Like I said before MarkE, randomness is the ultimate order in the universe.

Analogy with vibration mechanics is apparent with the only modification that in rhythmodynamics wave sources have common movable, 1floating in wave medium foundation in the form of a standing wave which ensures the sources’ dynamic link through the wave medium itself. 2If this foundation (standing wave) shifts for some reason, the sources ‘mounted’ on it shift as well. This process may have a different description: 3if foundation, i.e. the standing wave linking the sources, cannot ensure synchronicity between the sources a driving force emerges shifting the foundation to such speed regime in which there won’t be any need to eliminate the phase displacement between the sources.
 
The same happens in the central gravitational field: the field imposes the phase displacement and thus breaks synchronicity of the system → foundation (standing wave) moves and ‘drags’ in its wake the sources → the trend to speed increase is due to phase shift increasing in time which is manifest until velocity is reached at which synchronicity of the system’s sources is possible. If the system is restrained from motion the standing wave passes efforts from a source to a source aimed at reaching synchronicity.
 
Synchronicity is possible either in the absence of phase displacement or in motion.  But the phase displacement is firmly secured by gravitational field which prevents nullification of the phase shift. As a result, the system is seeking synchronicity in motion.

Gravock

I can't believe there has been no comments on the self synchronization of a system.  This is the key to a reaction-less drive, such as the drive system a trout uses to effortlessly move upstream at great speeds.  I placed numbers in bold and superscript in the above quote for easy reference, and to correlate it with the trout's reaction-less drive system.

1A trout positioning itself in a standing wave (between the vortices) ensures the trouts dynamic link through the water itself.  2If the standing wave shifts for some reason, the trout 'mounted' on it will shift as well.  3If the standing wave linking the trout can't ensure synchronicity with the vortices, a driving force emerges shifting the standing wave to such speed regime in which there won't be any need to eliminate the phase displacement between the sources.  A trout will open it's gills and turn it's body to induce a phase displacement to break the synchronicity of the system, and the standing wave will move and drag the trout upstream in its wake with a speed increase until the velocity is reached at which synchronicity of the system is possible.  In summary, a trout is self-propelled upstream within a standing wave between the vortices.

References:  The art of nature (http://theartofnature.org/id20.html) and trout swimming in a vortex street (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/207/20/3495.full).

“Fish don’t’ swim, they’re swum and birds don’t fly, they’re flown”, Viktor Schauberger.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 09, 2015, 08:13:18 PM
Apparently, lesser intelligent species has figured out how to use self-syhrconization with it's environment in order to self-propel itself by using a reaction-less drive system (Grebennikov Solved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duaxmhD7vG4)).

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 09, 2015, 08:27:14 PM
   Gravityblock it's like a children's pantomime when you're involved.
   Oh yes it is, oh  no it isn't!

minnie,

Yes, you're right.  Even a child can grasp this stuff, but can you?  Since most of the audience, such as yourself is still drinking milk as babes do......then it must be presented in such a way.  Let me know when you're eating meat, so we can move beyond the elementary truths of this world and onto more interesting and fulfilling stuff. 

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 09, 2015, 08:40:34 PM
@Gravityblock


I have read most of Victor Schauberger's work and the effect is quite easy to understand. We could ask the question... is a vortex of water similar to still water or a unidirectional flow?. No it is not because a vortex becomes distinct in it's own right. It may move with a flow however it has it's own distinct motion within the flow.


In some respects we could say it becomes more tangible somewhere in between a fluid and a solid material. Thus we may "create" an individualized flow within another flow and push off of this just as we would a tangible object like a rock or wall. Now if we create a circular flow within a unidirectional flow then this circular flow may have twice the the velocity at it's perimeter in which case on one side we may lose ground and on the other we may gain.


The real issue is the same-same argument many like to offer however we should recognize the fact that many things may become distinct, individualized and separate from other things... much like ourselves. We are not them any more than they are us...obviously.



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 09, 2015, 10:11:55 PM

The real issue is the same-same argument many like to offer however we should recognize the fact that many things may become distinct, individualized and separate from other things... much like ourselves. We are not them any more than they are us...obviously.


Are we individualized and separate beings while being in sync and united with one another through the natural vibrations of the grid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SDGBCo2dJE) (this is a must see video), or our we losing our individualism and becoming legion while being out of sync and divided against one another through the loss of the grid's natural vibrations.  TPTB are diabolical motherfuckers, but they're smart.  The metronomes, representing an individual person will sync up through it's natural vibrations and become united (in phase) with other metronomes through the vibrations of the whole system.  However, the metronomes will not sync up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-c6S6SdkPo) with one another and will be divided (out of phase) with the other metronomes through the loss of the grid's natural vibrations.  TPTB have manipulated the whole system in away where the individual's natural vibrations have been dampened and cut off from being part of the grid, which causes division and strife in the world.  A house that is divided can't stand.  Individualism will be totally lost through the reprogramming of the grid with the idea of "betterment and benefit for the whole".  This is happening now!  The Illuminati talks about being cut off from the grid in their training video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muL2QPY1wCM).  This will be a total enslavement of mankind, and a person will lose their self-awareness and individual consciousnesses.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 09, 2015, 10:32:40 PM
Are we individualized and separate beings while being in sync and united with one another through the natural vibrations of the grid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SDGBCo2dJE) (this is a must see video), or our we losing our individualism and becoming legion while being out of sync and divided against one another through the loss of the grid's natural vibrations.  TPTB are diabolical motherfuckers, but they're smart.  The metronomes, representing an individual person will sync up through it's natural vibrations and become united (in phase) with other metronomes through the vibrations of the whole system.  However, the metronomes will not sync up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-c6S6SdkPo) with one another and will be divided (out of phase) with the other metronomes through the loss of the grid's natural vibrations.  TPTB have manipulated the whole system in away where the individual's natural vibrations have been dampened and cut off from being part of the grid, which causes division and strife in the world.  A house that is divided can't stand.  Individualism will be totally lost through the reprogramming of the grid with the idea of "betterment for the whole".  This is happening now!  The Illuminati talks about being cut off from the grid in their training video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muL2QPY1wCM).  This will be a total enslavement of mankind, and a person will lose their self-awareness and individual consciousnesses.

Gravock

minnie,

I threw you some meat.  Let's see if you can eat and digest it properly.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 09, 2015, 11:46:56 PM



 I'm just a sad old man, I do love this forum though!
           John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 09, 2015, 11:53:24 PM
More evidence in why people aren't in sync with one another and becoming divided.

The Cosmic 432 & The Musical Conspiracy - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9-P_zbjbY)

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 10, 2015, 02:05:36 AM
Because they were tone deaf back then?

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand on August 10, 2015, 02:31:49 AM
Throwing two rocks of the same mass in opposite directions at the same time with the same force will result in no movement.

Throwing one rock at a time will cause either movement or it will reduce movement depending on which way the rocks are thrown.

There was never any danger of the case being otherwise. Anyone with half a brain can see why that is so. The finer details of how much is neither here nor there unless calculations are done like MarkE did. Thanks Mark.

.



Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 03:27:27 AM
Throwing two rocks of the same mass in opposite directions at the same time with the same force will result in no movement.

Throwing one rock at a time will cause either movement or it will reduce movement depending on which way the rocks are thrown.

There was never any danger of the case being otherwise. Anyone with half a brain can see why that is so. The finer details of how much is neither here nor there unless calculations are done like MarkE did. Thanks Mark.

.

Anyone with half a brain can see that MarkE didn't do the calculations according to the process described in the hypothetical.  Yeah, thank MarkE for giving us a false visualization of the hypothetical process.  What a way to be, lol.  I did say MarkE was going to draw the wrong visualization before he even posted any calculations.  How did I know that?  Because it's easy enough to work out the finer details in your head without even resorting to any kind of math.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 03:47:47 AM
Personally, I chalk Shawyer's ideas up to something that belongs in the Museum of Unworkable Devices.  I think his idea is akin to propelling something by placing a laser in a cavity with a highly reflective mirror at one end and a highly absorbant material at the other.  Or to put it another way:  a fan in a sailboat blowing on the sailboat's sail.

Farmhand,

MarkE put both the EmDrive and the sailboat blowing on it's own sail into the Museum of Unworkable Devices, even though empirical evidence says otherwise.  Yeah, let's thank MarkE again for another false-hood.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 03:54:34 AM

CuriousChris I go with what the weight of evidence tells us.  At this point in time it tells us that there isn't any known way to propel something without moving something else recognizable the opposite way.  That gives me a very low expectation that a reactionless drive can be devised.  Should someone come up with strong contrary evidence, then the collective we would be remiss to ignore such evidence.

The above is a quote by MarkE found on another thread which is related to this topic.  According to MarkE, the weight of the evidence at this time says there isn't any known way to propel something without moving something else recognizable the opposite way, and he has a very low expectation of a reaction-less drive being devised.  I'm sorry Farmhand for raining on MarkE's parade, but the weight of emperical evidence is substantial as we find in nature, from fish to birds, and from insects to micro-organisms.  Yeah, let's thank MarkE again for another false assertion and misdirection.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 04:34:30 AM
@Gravityblock
I like this quote from the link you posted. I have found this to be true and there is little progress to be made in examining local superficial events if one is unable to see the big picture. It should come as no surprise that the true nature of the Primary Fields and Inertia are completely unknown to science. My premise is simple... if it don't work then don't do it thus I reject the popular understanding of how things are supposed to work.
 
Concerning the boat and rocks experiment, I think it's important to see the contradiction in terms. In science they try to make absolute statements such as if I throw the two rocks in opposite directions there in no net motion in either direction. The contradiction here is that it is implied that there can never be any net motion under any circumstances however this is obviously not true. As such it is seldom if ever a matter of facts but moreso the context in which they apply or do not apply. In effect people tend to distort the facts to suit their own beliefs ultimately leading to the religion of modern science. It is no wonder 47% of scientists have falsified data or know someone who has in order to substantiate their beliefs. In essense it's a quagmire and is seldom if ever as it seems on the surface.
 
The fact is we may have one truth in one context which is completely false in another as we see with the boat and rocks experiment. So we must ask what is the truth when the truth is variable dependent on the context in which it applies. As such my tool for success is not a textbook but thought experiments to determine my own truth for myself.
It's a whacky world.

 
AC

It's good to see someone else who gets it!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 04:58:58 AM
Because they were tone deaf back then?

Bill

No, because they were more intelligent than those of today who think "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up".  In other words, they were in tune with nature and reality, unlike those of today.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 06:08:10 AM
Here's a video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuDlLcdLUw) showing how to lift an object really high with very little input energy.  And it uses the atmospheric pressure and a vacuum to do so.  Oh, and a perfect vacuum isn't necessary.  How does this not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 06:29:11 AM
Anyone with half a brain can see that MarkE didn't do the calculations according to the process described in the hypothetical.  Yeah, thank MarkE for giving us a false visualization of the hypothetical process.  What a way to be, lol.  I did say MarkE was going to draw the wrong visualization before he even posted any calculations.  How did I know that?  Because it's easy enough to work out the finer details in your head without even resorting to any kind of math.

Gravock
LOL, then show your work.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 06:35:56 AM
LOL, then show your work.

LOL, you did my work for me.  You showed in your calculations how you conventionally ignored the process described in the hypothetical.  In addition to this, your own words on several occasions also showed how you ignored the process described.

Gravock 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 07:03:12 AM
Here's a video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuDlLcdLUw) showing how to lift an object really high with very little input energy.  And it uses the atmospheric pressure and a vacuum to do so.  Oh, and a perfect vacuum isn't necessary.  How does this not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock
Yes, given the chance water does fall down around lighter objects.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 07:06:27 AM
LOL, you did my work for me.  You showed in your calculations how you conventionally ignored the process described in the hypothetical.  In addition to this, your own words on several occasions also showed how you ignored the process described.

Gravock
LOL, You can choose to show your work or not.  So far it is not.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 07:06:54 AM
Yes, given the chance water does fall down around lighter objects.

Can you please clarify what you're saying yes to.  Are you saying it does qualify as a reaction-less drive, or are you saying it does not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 07:10:07 AM
LOL, You can choose to show your work or not.  So far it is not.

Sure, I'll write a computer program that is in-line with the process described in the hypothetical.  I'll let you review the source code.  Do you know how to code MarkE?  I think I'll write it in assembly language.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 08:19:17 AM
Can you please clarify what you're saying yes to.  Are you saying it does qualify as a reaction-less drive, or are you saying it does not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock
LOL, you are of course joking.  The video demonstrated that water that has been lifted up by expending work falls right back down given the chance.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 08:20:58 AM
Sure, I'll write a computer program that is in-line with the process described in the hypothetical.  I'll let you review the source code.  Do you know how to code MarkE?  I think I'll write it in assembly language.

Gravock
You are welcome to present whatever you want, obfuscated however you like. 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 10, 2015, 08:32:43 AM



   gravityblock you've been a bit "lost" with a few of your latest analogies.
   Maybe you can program computers but just think hard as to why the
   little screw floats up the tube. Just use known science to work out the
   metronomes.
     I agree that with a "hypothetical" case you can bend the rules if you
    want to.
       Can "dogma" exist as it used to in these days of rapid communication
    between the more or less whole population of the world? The brightest
    minds get to cast their "eagle eyes" over all this stuff.
       I love this forum because it's not censored to death, everyone has their
    own ideas and the reader can choose to follow a contributor or not as the
    reader chooses.
             John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 08:48:55 AM
LOL, you are of course joking.  The video demonstrated that water that has been lifted up by expending work falls right back down given the chance.

This isn't about the water being lifted by expending work and falling back down when given the chance.  This is about an object moving without inertia.  If you claim it's moving by inertia, then you must show where and how the object itself is releasing energy to do so.  And, you must show that the system has lost energy by moving the object to the top.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 08:55:56 AM
You are welcome to present whatever you want, obfuscated however you like.

The computer program will give a much better visual. Also, much easier to show more than 2 rocks being thrown from the boat, which doesn't really give much more of a visual than without the calculations.  Also, the parameters can be easily changed to run different variations, so we can compare your wrong visual to the correct visual of the hypothetical.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 09:11:41 AM


   gravityblock you've been a bit "lost" with a few of your latest analogies.
   Maybe you can program computers but just think hard as to why the
   little screw floats up the tube. Just use known science to work out the
   metronomes.
     I agree that with a "hypothetical" case you can bend the rules if you
    want to.
       Can "dogma" exist as it used to in these days of rapid communication
    between the more or less whole population of the world? The brightest
    minds get to cast their "eagle eyes" over all this stuff.
       I love this forum because it's not censored to death, everyone has their
    own ideas and the reader can choose to follow a contributor or not as the
    reader chooses.
             John.

Just because it's a hypothetical thought experiment, doesn't mean it's bending the rules.  Who's to say the hypothetical couldn't be done in a real life experiment.  The momentum issue could be solved along with the position for the source of rocks in a controlled environment.  Mythbusters successfully canceled the forward and backwards momentum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc) of shooting a soccer ball from a moving truck, and it wasn't even done in a controlled environment.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 10:04:37 AM
   gravityblock you've been a bit "lost" with a few of your latest analogies.
   Maybe you can program computers but just think hard as to why the
   little screw floats up the tube.
Just use known science to work out the
   metronomes.

I already knew the answer prior to my posting.  It has to do with displacement.  Aristotle got it right when he said  “… the celestial matter (bodies) has a propensity to restore force which it needs to sustain the steadiness of motion”.  There is no motion by inertia, but there’s illusion of it. The illusion of 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.

The object moving to the top of the tube proceeds with constant speed and synchronicity due to phase displacement.  The object moving to the top doesn't do so by inertia or friction.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 11:43:08 AM
This isn't about the water being lifted by expending work and falling back down when given the chance.  This is about an object moving without inertia.  If you claim it's moving by inertia, then you must show where and how the object itself is releasing energy to do so.  And, you must show that the system has lost energy by moving the object to the top.

Gravock
LOL, so you think you see non-inertial behavior in that video do you?  Well you go right ahead and point to what behavior in that video you think is non-inertial.  Do you think the system doesn't lose GPE as the float rises do you?  Well, let's see buckaroos:  When the float is at the bottom the center of gravity is higher than when the float is at the top.  Since the total mass does not change, that means that the initial condition has the greater GPE, ergo the GPE decreases, ergo the system loses energy as the float rises.  QED.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 11:49:46 AM
I already knew the answer prior to my posting.  It has to do with displacement.  Aristotle got it right when he said  “… the celestial matter (bodies) has a propensity to restore force which it needs to sustain the steadiness of motion”.  There is no motion by inertia, but there’s illusion of it. The illusion of 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.

The object moving to the top of the tube proceeds with constant speed and synchronicity due to phase displacement.  The object moving to the top doesn't do so by inertia or friction.

Gravock
LOL, the float rises because the water falls.  The water is viscous.  From the instant that the float is released allowing the water to start falling around it, the viscous drag quickly matches the inertia limited acceleration due to gravity and the speed quickly stabilizes.  It is ordinary, text book kinematics.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 11:51:31 AM
LOL, so you think you see non-inertial behavior in that video do you?  Well you go right ahead and point to what behavior in that video you think is non-inertial.  Do you think the system does lose GPE as the float rises do you?  Well, let's see buckaroos:  When the float is at the bottom the center of gravity is higher than when the float is at the top.  Since the total mass does not change, that means that the initial condition has the greater GPE, ergo the GPE decreases, ergo the system loses energy as the float rises.  QED.

LOL, you have it inverted.  The screw converts its KPE as it rises into GPE.  The system loses no energy as the float rises.  How convenient of you to leave out KPE.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 12:17:29 PM
LOL, the float rises because the water falls.  The water is viscous.  From the instant that the float is released allowing the water to start falling around it, the viscous drag quickly matches the inertia limited acceleration due to gravity and the speed quickly stabilizes.  It is ordinary, text book kinematics.

The float rises because it displaces the water and not the other way around.  The float pushes the water out of the tube as it rises, which is the restoring force needed to sustain it's motion.  Once again, you have the process inverted, LOL.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 12:44:40 PM
MarkE,

According to you, the water isn't allowed to fall and displace the screw until the screw is first released.  You're putting the effect before the cause.......and if you would put your text books to the side, then you would realize how you're putting the cart before the horse, ROFLMAO.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
LOL, you have it inverted.  The screw converts its KPE as it rises into GPE.  The system loses no energy as the float rises.  How convenient of you to leave out KPE.

Gravock
LOL.  Ignore reality all you want. Water loses GPE, pushes on the float, the float gains KE AND GPE during the rise and ultimately loses KE.  The system loses net GPE as the center of gravity falls throughout the process.  When the process is done the float has expended all KE gained during the upward traverse, and the column has lost GPE.  You are free to dispute by showing your work.  The floats rate of ascent is initially limited by the inertia of the float and the water.  As the ascent gains speed it is further limited by viscous drag.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
MarkE,

According to you, the water isn't allowed to fall and displace the screw until the screw is first released.  You're putting the effect before the cause.......and if you would put your text books to the side, then you would realize how you're putting the cart before the horse, ROFLMAO.

Gravock
LOL. 
Q. What keeps the water from falling?  A. The float that as long as it is held at the bottom.
Q. When does the water start falling.  A. As soon as it can push the float upward.



Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 02:07:38 PM
LOL.  Ignore reality all you want. Water loses GPE, pushes on the float, the float gains KE AND GPE during the rise and ultimately loses KE.  The system loses net GPE as the center of gravity falls throughout the process.  When the process is done the float has expended all KE gained during the upward traverse, and the column has lost GPE.  You are free to dispute by showing your work.  The floats rate of ascent is initially limited by the inertia of the float and the water.  As the ascent gains speed it is further limited by viscous drag.

So, the water pushes on the float, and the float moves against the push.....<-------Good luck pushing this idea.  ROFLMAO!!!!  It is you who is ignoring reality and not me.  Another psychological projection from you.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 02:11:33 PM
So, the water pushes on the float, and the float moves against the push.....<-------Good luck pushing this idea.  ROFLMAO!!!!  It is you who is ignoring reality and not me.  Another psychological projection from you.

Gravock
This is all elementary text book physics you are resisting.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 02:19:39 PM
This is all elementary text book physics you are resisting.

I know physics according to the text books, and I rejected those books based on bad information.  I'm not the one who is holding onto those text books and resisting from letting them go.  Can you think for yourself, or do you need someone to tell you what to think?  That's exactly what you have done.  You have given this corrupted system of things the power to do your thinking for you, and without even questioning what your being taught.  A mindless robot!  What a way to be, LOL.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 02:43:53 PM
I know physics according to the text books, and I rejected those books based on bad information.  I'm not the one who is holding onto those text books and resisting from letting them go.  Can you think for yourself, or do you need someone to tell you what to think?  That's exactly what you have done.  You have given this corrupted system of things the power to do your thinking for you, and without even questioning what your being taught.  A mindless robot!  What a way to be, LOL.

Gravock
If you wish to try and assert unaccepted ideas about physics then it is your burden to prove those ideas are correct.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 02:54:48 PM
If you wish to try and assert unaccepted ideas about physics then it is your burden to prove those ideas are correct.

The widely accepted ideas have all come from the same source, which is TPTB.  You should question this single source, since there is very strong evidence they don't have our best interest in mind.  You accepted the ideas being taught by TPTB (blind faith), so why didn't you place the burden on them to prove those ideas in which they are teaching?  The burden of proof is on me, but not on TPTB.....LOL.  Actually the burden of proof is on yourself and not anyone else.  Don't place your responsibility off onto someone else.  Also, stop projecting your faults and shortcomings off onto other people.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 03:45:33 PM
The widely accepted ideas have all come from the same source, which is TPTB.  You should question this single source, since there is very strong evidence they don't have our best interest in mind.  You accepted the ideas being taught by TPTB (blind faith), so why didn't you place the burden on them to prove those ideas in which they are teaching?  The burden of proof is on me, but not on TPTB.....LOL.  Actually the burden of proof is on yourself and not anyone else.  Don't place your responsibility off onto someone else.  Also, stop projecting your faults and shortcomings off onto other people.

Gravock
LOL.  Accepted science has a huge body of evidence backing it.  That is how it came to be accepted.  If you wish to offer credible challenge to that, then bring strong evidence of your own.  Crackpot conspiracy theories do not science make.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 10, 2015, 04:18:40 PM



 gravityblock I can see where you're coming from, now.
  You'll have to follow Theoriapophasis and write your own
 books and put the wrong things right.
  Sometime in the future maybe a student will query your
 work, who knows?
   I'm so fascinated with discovering this stuff, I'd never
  even heard of phonons 'till a few months ago.
    I had no idea how much more there was to be researched,
  there's still a long long way to go and unfortunately I won't
  last long enough to see much of it
             John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 10, 2015, 06:46:12 PM
@Gravityblock
Concerning the float in the tube video, it cannot work a shown because when the float reaches the top of the tube it must be removed. When we remove the float at the top there will be a void where the float was and this is the water which was displaced which must be replaced to make a continuous cycle. It is unworkable as shown in my opinion unless we can change the context of how and why cause and effect take place.


That being said a change in context may produce a change in the outcome so long as there is a meaningful change in the properties of the system. Which begs the question how do we change the system in a meaningful way?. Unfortunately most cannot even begin to grasp what is required because the solution must be different and it is often very abstract and non-intuitive.


So how do we remove the float at the top of the tube?, if we were in outer space where things have mass but no weight then we could easily remove the float and replace the water which was displaced with almost no work involved in the process. Thus it would seem obvious to me the property which we need to change in the system is the construct of weight which is actually quite easy.


Consider the properties of the system at ground level and then in outer space then reproduce the properties of outer space as needed at ground level. I will let this roll around in our minds for a while and see if anyone here can find the solution before I give it to you.


AC

Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 07:16:50 PM
@Gravityblock
Concerning the float in the tube video, it cannot work a shown because when the float reaches the top of the tube it must be removed. When we remove the float at the top there will be a void where the float was and this is the water which was displaced which must be replaced to make a continuous cycle. It is unworkable as shown in my opinion unless we can change the context of how and why cause and effect take place.


That being said a change in context may produce a change in the outcome so long as there is a meaningful change in the properties of the system. Which begs the question how do we change the system in a meaningful way?. Unfortunately most cannot even begin to grasp what is required because the solution must be different and it is often very abstract and non-intuitive.


So how do we remove the float at the top of the tube?, if we were in outer space where things have mass but no weight then we could easily remove the float and replace the water which was displaced with almost no work involved in the process. Thus it would seem obvious to me the property which we need to change in the system is the construct of weight which is actually quite easy.


Consider the properties of the system at ground level and then in outer space then reproduce the properties of outer space as needed at ground level. I will let this roll around in our minds for a while and see if anyone here can find the solution before I give it to you.


AC
Absent an acceleration such as due to gravity or rotation, there isn't anything to induce differential movement between the denser and less dense materials in the first place.  Once there is an acceleration, then the greater density material is subject to a greater force, and the system will naturally seek to redistribute mass going from any starting state towards the PE minimum state. 

Where the starting state is not the PE minimum state, energy can be extracted during such a traverse.  After such a traverse the PE difference between states has been lost and must be replaced to return the system to its original condition.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 09:27:33 PM
Absent an acceleration such as due to gravity or rotation, there isn't anything to induce differential movement between the denser and less dense materials in the first place.  Once there is an acceleration, then the greater density material is subject to a greater force, and the system will naturally seek to redistribute mass going from any starting state towards the PE minimum state. 

Where the starting state is not the PE minimum state, energy can be extracted during such a traverse.  After such a traverse the PE difference between states has been lost and must be replaced to return the system to its original condition.

MarkE,

Actually at that distance from the earth of an orbiting space shuttle, the gravitational force is still 90-95%.  They're in a free-fall weightless environment and not free from the gravitational force.  This satisfies the conditions as stated by AC, which is being in outer space where we have mass but no weight.  Besides, you're still inverting the effect for the cause....and inverting the direction of the force for the prime mover.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2015, 10:46:05 PM
MarkE,

Actually at that distance from the earth of an orbiting space shuttle, the gravitational force is still 90-95%.  They're in a free-fall weightless environment and not free from the gravitational force.  This satisfies the conditions as stated by AC, which is being in outer space where we have mass but no weight.  Besides, you're still inverting the effect for the cause....and inverting the direction of the force for the prime mover.

Gravock
The buoyant force on a submerged object is the result of the gravitational pull on the surrounding fluid be that fluid: air, water, helium, hydrogen disulfide, or whatever counteracting the gravitational pull on the submerged object.  When the surrounding fluid density is greater than the submerged object density the net force is up.  It then takes work to displace more dense surrounding fluid up in order to submerge / further submerge the less dense object.  The surrounding fluid is indeed pushing the submerged object up.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 11:14:46 PM
The buoyant force on a submerged object is the result of the gravitational pull on the surrounding fluid be that fluid: air, water, helium, hydrogen disulfide, or whatever counteracting the gravitational pull on the submerged object.  When the surrounding fluid density is greater than the submerged object density the net force is up.  It then takes work to displace more dense surrounding fluid up in order to submerge / further submerge the less dense object.  The surrounding fluid is indeed pushing the submerged object up.

This is another inversion of the truth.  In this case, the greater force is the atmospheric pressure and not the gravitational force.  How convenient of you to leave out the atmospheric pressure.  This is similar to there being a greater force as we found in the blowing your own sail example.

Watch the video again.  When he lifts the tube out of the water, the atmospheric pressure forces air into the tube.  The atmospheric pressure wouldn't be able to fill the tube with air if the gravitational force on the water is greater.  The water then begins to fall out of the tube at the rate the tube is being filled with air by the atmospheric pressure.  If the gravitational force on the water is the greater force, then we wouldn't see the tube filling up with air, and all of the water would fall out of the tube at nearly the same time at the acceleration rate of gravity (it would be like turning a full glass of water with no lid upside down).  You have inverted the effect for the cause, and you have inverted the direction of the force for the prime mover.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 10, 2015, 11:31:59 PM



 Atmospheric pressure is gravity-so put that in yer pipe and smoke it!!!
        John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 10, 2015, 11:36:27 PM


 Atmospheric pressure is gravity-so put that in yer pipe and smoke it!!!
        John.

Like I said, this is similar to there being a greater force as we found in the blowing your own sail example.  And, why can't the atmospheric pressure be anti-gravity also under the right conditions?  The pressure at the bottom of the tube has a greater force pointing up than the pressure at the top of the tube that is pointing down.  Call it whatever you like, but it doesn't change what it is, which is a pressure differential.  You just have to get the direction of the greater force right.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!  Oh, and don't drink the bong water, LOL.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Farmhand on August 11, 2015, 12:21:18 AM
Here's a video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuDlLcdLUw) showing how to lift an object really high with very little input energy.  And it uses the atmospheric pressure and a vacuum to do so.  Oh, and a perfect vacuum isn't necessary.  How does this not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock

Wouldn't it be easier to just lift up the screw rather than lift up a big column water so the screw can float up ?

Of course if there is a column of water stuff that floats will umm... float up in it. wow.

..
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 12:31:00 AM
At 1m50s of the video we can see a convex shape formed at the boundary between the water and the air.  If the water is being displaced as the air is rising in the tube by a greater force from below, then we'll see a convex shape formed at the boundary, and this is what we see.  The air is rising in the tube by the greater atmospheric pressure from below, and the water forms a convex as it's being displaced by the rising air.


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 12:37:18 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to just lift up the screw rather than lift up a big column water so the screw can float up ?

This has nothing to do with what method is the easiest to lift up the screw.  This has to do with motion without inertia through phase displacement.  Wow, you really missed the boat, ROFLMAO!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 01:13:23 AM
Of course if there is a column of water stuff that floats will umm... float up in it. wow.

The buoyancy was just enough to float the screw.  If you submerged this float under a column of water, it won't float up as you suggested....unless there is a pressure differential.  You missed the boat once again!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2015, 02:31:54 AM
This is another inversion of the truth.  In this case, the greater force is the atmospheric pressure and not the gravitational force.
LOL, and what sets the atmospheric pressure hot shot? Oh, that would be the weight IE the gravitational force on the air.
Quote
  How convenient of you to leave out the atmospheric pressure.  This is similar to there being a greater force as we found in the blowing your own sail example.

Watch the video again.  When he lifts the tube out of the water, the atmospheric pressure forces air into the tube.  The atmospheric pressure wouldn't be able to fill the tube with air if the gravitational force on the water is greater.  The water then begins to fall out of the tube at the rate the tube is being filled with air by the atmospheric pressure.  If the gravitational force on the water is the greater force, then we wouldn't see the tube filling up with air, and all of the water would fall out of the tube at nearly the same time at the acceleration rate of gravity (it would be like turning a full glass of water with no lid upside down).  You have inverted the effect for the cause, and you have inverted the direction of the force for the prime mover.
LOL.  Are you trying to compete with MM in some sort of crackpot competition?  The water and everything else in the local environment is subject to the surrounding air pressure caused by the force of gravity on the atmosphere from the local elevation on up.
Quote

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 02:43:16 AM
LOL, and what sets the atmospheric pressure hot shot? Oh, that would be the weight IE the gravitational force on the air.LOL.  Are you trying to compete with MM in some sort of crackpot competition?  The water and everything else in the local environment is subject to the surrounding air pressure caused by the force of gravity on the atmosphere from the local elevation on up.

Like I have said for the third time, this is similar to there being a greater force as we found in the blowing your own sail example.  And, why can't the atmospheric pressure be anti-gravity also under the right conditions?  The pressure at the bottom of the tube has a greater force pointing up than the pressure at the top of the tube that is pointing down.  Atmospheric pressure from below is a way to distinguish it from the gravitational force from above.  Call it whatever you like, but it doesn't change what it is, which is a pressure differential in this case.  You just have to get the direction of the greater force right.


Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 03:00:26 AM
LOL, and what sets the atmospheric pressure hot shot? Oh, that would be the weight IE the gravitational force on the air.LOL.

Actually, a vacuum, the weather, such as hurricanes, warm/cold fronts, and an ionization of the air can change the atmospheric pressure locally.  How convenient of you to leave out these other factors (this is a pattern from you).  Does this mean the gravitational force was changed or set locally by a change in atmospheric pressure Mr. Hot Shot?  LOL!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 03:22:21 AM
If it wasn't for the vacuum, the float with the screw wouldn't rise to the top of the tube because there would be equal pressure on all sides of it.  The vacuum represents a local change in the pressure, thus we can't use the gravitational force to represent this local change in pressure.  This is common sense, and to think otherwise is to be a crackpot as MarkE is.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2015, 03:30:57 AM
Actually, a vacuum, the weather, such as hurricanes, warm/cold fronts, and an ionization of the air can change the atmospheric pressure locally.  How convenient of you to leave out these other factors (this is a pattern from you).  Does this mean the gravitational force was changed or set locally by a change in atmospheric pressure Mr. Hot Shot?  LOL!

Gravock
So what do you get if you prove yourself more of a crackpot than MM?
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 03:33:50 AM
So what do you get if you prove yourself more of a crackpot than MM?

Right or wrong, I'm not looking to receive anything.  There has been a lot of famous scientists in the past who were called crack pots in their time, and they were proven to be correct many years later.  The reverse has occurred also.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 11, 2015, 04:15:24 AM
Right or wrong, I'm not looking to receive anything.  There has been a lot of famous scientists in the past who were called crack pots in their time, and they were proven to be correct many years later.  The reverse has occurred also.

Gravock

My vote is with the reverse on this one.

Bill
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 04:28:26 AM
My vote is with the reverse on this one.

Bill

That vote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  So, you think I'm right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong and a crack pot down the road.  Or, you think MarkE is right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong and a crack pot down the road.  Either way, your own thoughts and reasoning skills are conflicted against each other.    This is almost as good as, "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up".

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2015, 04:53:19 AM
My vote is with the reverse on this one.

Bill
GravityBlock is not a famous scientist.  He does seem revel in promoting a relatively famous crackpot: MM.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 05:21:58 AM
GravityBlock is not a famous scientist.  He does seem revel in promoting a relatively famous crackpot: MM.

It's not a requirement to be a famous scientist in order to be considered right or wrong, and later proven to be otherwise.  I'm not promoting MM here.  If you think I am, then kindly show me the references of MM that relates to the same ideas I'm promoting on this topic.  In case you haven't noticed, I've been promoting the ideas as presented by RD (you missed the boat again).  You have done nothing but misrepresent what I have posted.  And, you do this with others who don't agree with you.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2015, 05:35:26 AM
LOL, it is up to you to properly represent your ideas.  If you are unhappy with the way that you think that I or anyone else represents them then it is up to you to set the record straight as to what your ideas are.  You do yourself no favors with your stated contempt for established physics.  So far you have done nothing to establish that your ideas better represent reality than established physics.  If your hope is to convince folks that your ideas are anything other than so much crackpottery, I think you are doing a particularly poor job.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 05:49:35 AM
LOL, it is up to you to properly represent your ideas.  If you are unhappy with the way that you think that I or anyone else represents them then it is up to you to set the record straight as to what your ideas are.

The publications, books, and experiments by RD has failed to properly represent the idea to you also.  I understand the ideas as presented by RD, so why can't you?  It's because RD is in disagreement with your own beliefs.  However, this doesn't mean you misrepresent those ideas in which you disagree with.  You and Dan the downer are so much alike.  You don't know your head from your ass.  How can anyone properly represent their ideas to someone else who don't have the capacity to perceive things correctly.  It's like trying to properly represent your ideas to the fly on the wall.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 11, 2015, 06:02:03 AM
That vote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  So, you think I'm right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong and a crack pot down the road.  Or, you think MarkE is right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong and a crack pot down the road.  Either way, your own thoughts and reasoning skills are conflicted against each other.    This is almost as good as, "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up".

Gravock

I just finished reading yet another book where "you have to slow down to speed up" is explained in great detail.  The book is: "Failure Is Not An Option" by Gene Kranz.  He clearly explains the study of orbital mechanics and how they had to learn to perform the essential rendezvous maneuver in order to get to the moon.  Yes, they did have to slow down to speed up.  Hopefully, one day you will be able to grasp this concept. This is the 4th book I have read that explains this principle.  Obviously, you have not read anything on the subject, otherwise, your comments might make some sense.

Oh, to explain, I think MarkE is correct (as well as known science) and you are not correct.  I did not think that I would have to explain that but...there it is.

Bill

PS  That concept could better be explained as having to slow down to CATCH up but, that is not the way all of those books have worded it...it would be more correct in my opinion.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2015, 06:24:15 AM
The publications, books, and experiments by RD has failed to properly represent the idea to you also.  I understand the ideas as presented by RD, so why can't you?  It's because RD is in disagreement with your own beliefs.  However, this doesn't mean you misrepresent those ideas in which you disagree with.  You and Dan the downer are so much alike.  You don't know your head from your ass.  How can anyone properly represent their ideas to someone else who don't have the capacity to perceive things correctly.  It's like trying to properly represent your ideas to the fly on the wall.

Gravock
You have reduced yourself to ad hominem attacks.  Nice.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 06:29:55 AM
I just finished reading yet another book where "you have to slow down to speed up" is explained in great detail.  The book is: "Failure Is Not An Option" by Gene Kranz.  He clearly explains the study of orbital mechanics and how they had to learn to perform the essential rendezvous maneuver in order to get to the moon.  Yes, they did have to slow down to speed up.  Hopefully, one day you will be able to grasp this concept. This is the 4th book I have read that explains this principle.  Obviously, you have not read anything on the subject, otherwise, your comments might make some sense.

"Failure is not an option" was in fact coined by Bill Broyles, one of the screenwriters of Apollo 13.  I can't believe your reading books about going to the moon, when they clearly faked it.  Each to their own.  We've already had this discussion, so no need in repeating it.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 06:37:38 AM
You have reduced yourself to ad hominem attacks.  Nice.

If that's the way you want to perceive it, then so be it.  It is what it is!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 06:51:19 AM
If that's the way you want to perceive it, then so be it.  It is what it is!

Gravock

MarkE

I can't find the fly at fault.  However, you're intentionally being like Dan the downer and the fly on the wall.  There's a big difference!  I've been promoting RD in this topic, and you're saying I'm promoting MM.  That is a big misrepresentation by taking things out of context and twisting them whatever way you choose.  It's a pattern you don't break and it takes up a lot of bandwidth and time in trying to untwist and put it back into it's proper place.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 07:24:12 AM
Oh, to explain, I think MarkE is correct (as well as known science) and you are not correct.  I did not think that I would have to explain that but...there it is.

I knew your vote would need to be explained to yourself.  You chose the reverse, and the reverse was that you think a person is right at this particular time, but will be proven wrong down the road.  The proving wrong was to be done sometime down the road.  Your explanation of your vote is only in regards to the "now", and totally disregards the future (down the road), and totally disregards the proving wrong aspect of it as well.  How convenient of you to leave out the future and the proving wrong aspects in your explanation of your vote.  Now you're following in MarkE's footsteps by conveniently leaving things out.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2015, 09:03:05 AM
MarkE

I can't find the fly at fault.  However, you're intentionally being like Dan the downer and the fly on the wall.  There's a big difference!  I've been promoting RD in this topic, and you're saying I'm promoting MM.  That is a big misrepresentation by taking things out of context and twisting them whatever way you choose.  It's a pattern you don't break and it takes up a lot of bandwidth and time in trying to untwist and put it back into it's proper place.

Gravock
LOL
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 11, 2015, 03:25:11 PM
@Mark E
Quote
You have reduced yourself to ad hominem attacks.  Nice.


I would have to agree, criticizing the person rather than the concept has always been a losing proposition. I'm a little busy right now but in a bit I will post my solution to the float in tube problem and see where it takes us.




AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 11, 2015, 05:38:30 PM
Concerning the float in a tube problem.


As I said prior at the top of the fixed tube the float displaces a volume of water which must be replaced and there is no getting around this fact. If the water displaced was not replaced then the height of the water column would get smaller and smaller and the process would stop. It requires work to lift the water to be replaced which is equivalent to the work performed by the float when rising in the tube.


My solution seemed obvious in that the weight of the water column is the real issue and if at some point it had no apparent weight then the system properties have changed in our favor. So how do we do it?, I would coat the inside and outside of the tube with a water repellent so the water column acts more like a friction-less rigid body in the tube then cradle the tube so it may move up and down freely on friction-less magnetic springs. If the tube can oscillate up and down with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water then at the top of the upward stroke the whole of the water column becomes weightless due to it's own inertia. It should be obvious this oscillator is a conservative system... nothing lost nothing gained.


Now if at the top of the tube stroke when the water column is weightless but moving upward we removed the float then the water column may advance upward to replace the volume of the float due to it's own inertia. The water which moved upward let's say 3" to replace the float must also fall the same 3" later on with the whole tube thus mass of the water and tube as a whole is conserved minus the float.


The process would be as follows:
1)  Float in stationary tube rises to the top of the tube performing work.
2)  Energy from an external source is added to set the whole tube/water column in oscillation upward/downward with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water.
3)  At the top of the stroke when the water is weightless but still acting upwards due to it's own inertia we open a valve and remove the float.
4)  The water column advances up 3" in the tube to fill the float space and a valve is closed then the whole tube and water column falls the same 3" conserving mass and energy with respect to the tube and water column as a whole. ie..the system does not know the float is missing with respect to the mass nor height of the water except for the mass of the float which is small in comparison.
5)  The energy which initially set the tube in oscillation from an external source is then removed and stored and the tube and water column come to rest. The cycle repeats.






As we can see energy is conserved with respect to the whole oscillating tube/water column minus the float mass, it is also conserved with respect to the height of the water column in that the water rises 3" due to it's own inertia when the float is removed then falls the same 3" with the whole tube later on. The thing to keep in mind is that the mass/energy of the oscillating tube is the same regardless of where the float is in the tube. It does not care if the float is at the top or bottom or if it performed work or not. The oscillating tube is simply a more efficient means to remove the float, nothing more. Thus it would seem to me multiple conservative systems may be used to change the properties of the system which may change the rules... or not...we will see.






AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 05:53:51 PM
@Mark E

I would have to agree, criticizing the person rather than the concept has always been a losing proposition. I'm a little busy right now but in a bit I will post my solution to the float in tube problem and see where it takes us.

AC

You agree it isn't appropriate to criticize the person, even if the person is intentionally taking things out of context, misdirecting, misrepresenting, etc?  I respect his concepts, but not the intentional misbehavior.

What has this world come to, lol.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 06:00:41 PM
Also,

MarkE has been attacking the person of MM by calling him a crackpot, and then attacking me personally cause I subscribe to some of his concepts and calling me a crackpot as well.  He has also personally attacked me by calling me a crackpot for the concepts I have promoted here by RD.  The ad hominem attacks have come from MarkE first.  The ad hominem attacks by me was in response to his intentional misbehavior and personal attacks. Unbelievable how he has turned his wrong doings around into a way were he gets the support of others while turning them against me.  Is it that easy to bamboozle and hoodwink the audience, lol.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 06:41:10 PM
Concerning the float in a tube problem.

As I said prior at the top of the fixed tube the float displaces a volume of water which must be replaced and there is no getting around this fact. If the water displaced was not replaced then the height of the water column would get smaller and smaller and the process would stop. It requires work to lift the water to be replaced which is equivalent to the work performed by the float when rising in the tube.

My solution seemed obvious in that the weight of the water column is the real issue and if at some point it had no apparent weight then the system properties have changed in our favor. So how do we do it?, I would coat the inside and outside of the tube with a water repellent so the water column acts more like a friction-less rigid body in the tube then cradle the tube so it may move up and down freely on friction-less magnetic springs. If the tube can oscillate up and down with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water then at the top of the upward stroke the whole of the water column becomes weightless due to it's own inertia. It should be obvious this oscillator is a conservative system... nothing lost nothing gained.

Now if at the top of the tube stroke when the water column is weightless but moving upward we removed the float then the water column may advance upward to replace the volume of the float due to it's own inertia. The water which moved upward let's say 3" to replace the float must also fall the same 3" later on with the whole tube thus mass of the water and tube as a whole is conserved minus the float.

The process would be as follows:
1)  Float in stationary tube rises to the top of the tube performing work.
2)  Energy from an external source is added to set the whole tube/water column in oscillation upward/downward with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water.
3)  At the top of the stroke when the water is weightless but still acting upwards due to it's own inertia we open a valve and remove the float.
4)  The water column advances up 3" in the tube to fill the float space and a valve is closed then the whole tube and water column falls the same 3" conserving mass and energy with respect to the tube and water column as a whole. ie..the system does not know the float is missing with respect to the mass nor height of the water except for the mass of the float which is small in comparison.
5)  The energy to set the tube in oscillation from an external source is removed and stored and the tube and water column come to rest. The cycle repeats.

As we can see energy is conserved with respect to the whole oscillating tube/water column minus the float mass, it is also conserved with respect to the height of the water column in that the water rises 3" due to it's own inertia when the float is removed then falls the same 3" with the whole tube later on. The thing to keep in mind is that the mass/energy of the oscillating tube is the same regardless of where the float is in the tube. It does not care if the float is at the top or bottom or if it performed work or not. The oscillating tube is simply a more efficient means to remove the float, nothing more. Thus it would seem to me multiple conservative systems may be used to change the properties of the system which may change the rules... or not...we will see.

AC

I agree motion can be achieved and sustained without a loss of energy within a system.  I also agree oscillations in some form would be helpful in achieving this.  It's just an engineering issue to find a way to dynamically change the properties of the system, as you have said.  We need to learn how to correctly use the restoring force which sustains a body's motion to our advantage.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 11, 2015, 07:22:08 PM
@Gravityblock
Quote
You agree it isn't appropriate to criticize the person, even if the person is intentionally taking things out of context, misdirecting, misrepresenting, etc?  I respect his concepts, but not the intentional misbehavior.[/size]What has this world come to, lol.




I think personal criticism takes away from the debate of concepts which I believe is our purpose here. I like to take a little poke every now and then as much as the next person however an endless series of personal critiques as we see in this thread is not the way to make our point. It does not matter what others say, it matters that we can justify our thoughts and idea's with common sense and real world examples that work.


That being said can you find any problems or issues with what I have proposed?. I'm not looking for any kind of agreement here and would I expect everyone to be very critical of everything I proposed. I expect them to break it down piece by piece in a logical and reasonable manner to find any errors in judgement I may have made and that my friend is what science and progress is all about.


Small minds talk about people and great minds talk about concepts... so let's talk about concepts.
Let's end this pointless he said she said nonsense and get on with it.


Can anyone here find fault with what I have proposed?




AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 11, 2015, 10:14:27 PM
Here's another possible solution:

Let's reverse the process by making the water buoyant instead of the screw.  We'll replace the screw with a metal golf ball or sphere with no float.  We'll add salt to the water to make the water buoyant.  We'll add enough salt to the water to the point where a little more than half of the sphere is floating above the water.  Next we'll add a liquid, such as liquid detergent on top of the sphere.  The detergent will float at the top of the tube and draw the sphere more out of the salt water.  The sphere floating mostly in the detergent makes the closed tube top heavy.  The tube being on a pivot point will then begin to rotate.  As the top heavy tube is rotating, the sphere and detergent will float back to the top of the tube and reach it's starting point.  The process should repeat and sustain itself.  Why wouldn't this work?

Gravock     
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 11, 2015, 11:03:54 PM
@gravityblock
Quote
Why wouldn't this work?


I had thought of that as well however in order to make it rotate with "less work" the point of rotation must be at the center of mass. We have already established the bottom portion is more dense to make the ball float so either we lower the point of rotation to rotate freely which leads to more work the next cycle or we require work to rotate which ends up being equal to the work performed by the float. I have been all through this scenario and I couldn't make the numbers work however if you can then you must know something I don't.


My thinking is that if the solution is obvious then we can be sure someone else must have thought of it at some point and since we do not have a working device this would imply the solution is not obvious but elusive and abstract. It must be something unique and my solution to this problem was based on the device below which I have built and tested and found to be very interesting.
www.rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm


AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 12:27:04 AM
@gravityblock

I had thought of that as well however in order to make it rotate with "less work" the point of rotation must be at the center of mass. We have already established the bottom portion is more dense to make the ball float so either we lower the point of rotation to rotate freely which leads to more work the next cycle or we require work to rotate which ends up being equal to the work performed by the float. I have been all through this scenario and I couldn't make the numbers work however if you can then you must know something I don't.



AC

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTnkoIWZZPI) to make sure we're on the same page.  We can put a solid sphere inside a larger hollow sphere and fill the hollow sphere with liquid detergent so both the sphere and detergent will float back to the top in unison.   The center of mass for the tube should be near the point of rotation (center of the tube) as the sphere is making it's way back to the top between the 3 o'clock position (assuming a CW rotation) and the 6 o'clock position (I hope I got that right).  The idea is to have the rising sphere reach the top of the tube at the same time the bottom of the tube reaches the 6 o'clock position.  The timing will be critical.  This means the mass of the sphere, density of the liquids, the diameter and length of the tube, etc. must be in the correct proportions relative to each other in order for the timing to be correct.  If properly done, the sphere should trace out an elliptical orbit while undergoing both perihelion and aphelion similar to planets.  The tube will be completely enclosed.

Gravock   
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 12, 2015, 01:06:20 AM
@Gravityblock
That is a very interesting video however we can make some simple observations here, the salt water is most dense which is why it is at the bottom, the detergent slightly less dense so it is above the salt water. As well the density of the ball is in between both the salt water and the detergent which is why it has settled between the boundary of the two fluids.


At which point a question comes to mind... if the most dense ie.. heaviest substances are at the bottom then when we rotate the column aren't we trying to move/rotate the heaviest substance to the top and the lightest to the bottom?. It may a fluid however it seems to me that the salt water at the bottom would always be heavier than the top which is why it is at the bottom and would require work to lift/rotate it.




AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 01:28:03 AM
@Gravityblock
That is very interesting video however we can make some simple observations here, the salt water is most dense which is why it is at the bottom, the detergent slightly less dense so it is above the salt water and the density of the ball is in between both the salt water and the detergent.

At which point a question comes to mind... if the most dense ie.. heaviest substances are at the bottom then when we rotate the column aren't we trying to move/rotate the heaviest substance to the top and the lightest to the bottom?. It may a fluid however it seems to me that the bottom would always be heavier than the top which is why it is at the bottom and would require work to lift/rotate it.

AC

Let's say we have a tube filled with 6ft. of salt water.  We'll place the pivot point for the tube at 3ft.  Now, adding the sphere and liquid detergent to the tube will make it top heavy.  Yes, the center of mass isn't at the center of rotation at this time (if it was, then it wouldn't be top heavy).  By being top heavy, the tube will begin to rotate.  Once the tube reaches the 3 o'clock position, then the sphere will start rising to the top.  The center of mass will then move towards the center of rotation as the sphere is rising and as the tube rotates towards the 6 o'clock position.

The idea is to have the rising sphere reach the top of the tube at the same time the bottom of the tube reaches the 6 o'clock position so the process can repeat and sustain itself.  The timing will be critical.  This means the mass of the sphere, density of the liquids, the diameter and length of the tube, etc. must be in the correct proportions relative to each other in order for the timing to be correct.  If properly done, the sphere should trace out an elliptical path while undergoing both perihelion and aphelion, similar to what occurs with planets.  I'm just trying to copy nature.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 02:41:07 AM
@Gravityblock



I think personal criticism takes away from the debate of concepts which I believe is our purpose here. I like to take a little poke every now and then as much as the next person however an endless series of personal critiques as we see in this thread is not the way to make our point. It does not matter what others say, it matters that we can justify our thoughts and idea's with common sense and real world examples that work.


That being said can you find any problems or issues with what I have proposed?. I'm not looking for any kind of agreement here and would I expect everyone to be very critical of everything I proposed. I expect them to break it down piece by piece in a logical and reasonable manner to find any errors in judgement I may have made and that my friend is what science and progress is all about.


Small minds talk about people and great minds talk about concepts... so let's talk about concepts.
Let's end this pointless he said she said nonsense and get on with it.


Can anyone here find fault with what I have proposed?




AC
The GPE is the energy store.  The demonstrated machine moves water up and down and if there were no losses, would still exhibit no gains.  As I understand it, you want to make the tube extra slippery so that you can move the tube independently of the water.  You are still just moving a mass up and down and cannot realize any energy gain cycle to cycle.  If the tube is closed at the top then slippery or not you will be lifting and dropping water mass in addition to the mass of the tube and it is back to square one.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: guest1289 on August 12, 2015, 02:45:21 AM
I read a  post  here,   about someone wanting to achieve  an   'Elliptical Orbit'  replication,  like the planets do (  I don't know if electrons also do  )

You could do that  easily with  my invention   http://overunity.com/15966/my-levitating-object-invention/msg458891/#msg458891

(  On the above page  search for   3_V magneticTrack.jpg   )

(  But,   a  'much-purer'  replication could be done with my original   'magnetic-toy-car'   on  a  'flat-magnetic-surface',   then remove the  car-body  ,   and just have a  'Levitating-Object'  floating  freely  on the   'magnetic-surface' ,    and  have  a   'central-magnet'    representing  the  SUN,    and see what results  you could get  .   
       This method would allow the  'Levitating-Object'  to find it's own  eliptical  path,   instead of using my   'Unpowered-Magnetic-Levitation-Track',   in my invention above )

AN  OVERUNITY ( PERPETUAL MOTION )  DEVICE  BASED ON AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT,   WOULD BE INTERESTING,  remembering that it would only need to be slightly eliptical.

(  Another method could be the  'Magnet-Inside-A-Copper-Pipe'  principle,  but I don't know if that principle functions  horizontally  )

COULD SUCH A DEVICE BE VIABLE FOR PRODUCING ENERGY (  AND,  I WONDER IF AN ELECTRONS ORBIT IS ACTUALLY CIRCULAR,  OR  ELLIPTICAL   )
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 04:55:27 AM
@ AC,

After the tube rotates 180o and the sphere reaches the top of the tube, the center of mass will now be at the center of rotation.  The system is totally balanced at this point.  The next 180o of rotation will be free wheeling it.  After a full 360o rotation, the system will be top heavy again.  Most wheels almost make it one full rotation just by having a simple weight attached to it.  The problem is on the upwards stroke of the weight, it will slow the system down before it can reach a full rotation.  However, what I'm proposing is, during most of the upwards stroke the system won't slow down since the weight is evenly distributed during most of that half cycle.  There will be a small decrease in speed on the upwards stroke, but it should make it a full rotation in order to complete the next cycle.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 05:15:30 AM
The GPE is the energy store.  The demonstrated machine moves water up and down and if there were no losses, would still exhibit no gains.  As I understand it, you want to make the tube extra slippery so that you can move the tube independently of the water.  You are still just moving a mass up and down and cannot realize any energy gain cycle to cycle.  If the tube is closed at the top then slippery or not you will be lifting and dropping water mass in addition to the mass of the tube and it is back to square one.

Let's put things back into perspective.  He never said there would be an energy gain.  He said it would be a conservative system with no losses and no gains.  There's a BIG difference in lifting a mass that has weight, and lifting the same mass that is weightless.  You're reply conveniently left out the fact that the mass the system will be lifting will be weightless on the upwards stroke.  I guess some things will never change.  So, the system will be lifting a water column that is weightless due to it's own inertia on the upwards stroke and it will move up and down freely on friction-less magnetic springs.  I must say, it's a really nice concept!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 12, 2015, 07:35:43 AM
We could think of it this way, I have a pendulum with the mass suspended on the left hand side (A) of center. I place a float on the mass then let go and the mass and float swing through center to the far right (B) and stops. If energy is conserved then how did the float travel through the distance from A to B?. Sure the height of the mass and float are nearly the same at A and B but that does not change the fact the float moved through a large distance from point A to point B while energy was being conserved. Why if I had a very long pendulum wire suspended from a fixed balloon in the upper atmosphere I could theoretically swing 100 miles and yet energy is for the most part conserved. I would rather swing 100 miles than walk it any day of the week. You see some very strange things can occur while energy is being conserved however it depends on one's perspective of what is actually happening and why it is happening.


The water/tube oscillation as explained is almost the same only in this case it does not act like a pendulum persay but more like a mass on a spring. As we all know when a mass on a spring reaches the peak of it's stroke upward it stops and becomes weightless for a moment. So I add energy to bounce my mass on a spring with a float on top of the mass and at the top of the stroke when the mass stops and becomes weightless for a moment I remove the float from the mass... no big deal. I then remove the energy I put into the system to make the mass bounce and energy is very nearly conserved.... again no big deal.


It is all dependent upon that one singular moment in time when a mass reaches the peak of it's upward motion then stops and becomes weightless. For a brief moment in time it acts like it's in outer space with little or no gravity rather than here on Earth. Think about that... no matter it's weight for a brief moment in time it is weightless.


AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 08:55:29 AM
We could think of it this way, I have a pendulum with the mass suspended on the left hand side (A) of center. I place a float on the mass then let go and the mass and float swing through center to the far right (B) and stops. If energy is conserved then how did the float travel through the distance from A to B?. Sure the height of the mass and float are nearly the same at A and B but that does not change the fact the float moved through a large distance from point A to point B while energy was being conserved. Why if I had a very long pendulum wire suspended from a fixed balloon in the upper atmosphere I could theoretically swing 100 miles and yet energy is for the most part conserved. I would rather swing 100 miles than walk it any day of the week. You see some very strange things can occur while energy is being conserved however it depends on one's perspective of what is actually happening and why it is happening.
Energy does not change with position per se.  Kinetic energy at a constant speed is itself constant even though position constantly changes.  Kinetic energy can remain constant even though velocity direction is constantly changing, so long as the acceleration is always orthogonal to the instant direction of travel.
Quote


The water/tube oscillation as explained is almost the same only in this case it does not act like a pendulum persay but more like a mass on a spring. As we all know when a mass on a spring reaches the peak of it's stroke upward it stops and becomes weightless for a moment. So I add energy to bounce my mass on a spring with a float on top of the mass and at the top of the stroke when the mass stops and becomes weightless for a moment I remove the float from the mass... no big deal. I then remove the energy I put into the system to make the mass bounce and energy is very nearly conserved.... again no big deal.
And if you keep removing lifted mass, you keep removing PE from the system until eventually you have taken it all away.
Quote


It is all dependent upon that one singular moment in time when a mass reaches the peak of it's upward motion then stops and becomes weightless. For a brief moment in time it acts like it's in outer space with little or no gravity rather than here on Earth. Think about that... no matter it's weight for a brief moment in time it is weightless.
For an instant, the velocity is zero.  The acceleration is in fact at a maximum at that same instant.
Quote


AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 12, 2015, 12:44:22 PM
The acceleration is in fact at a maximum at that same instant.

Sounds counter-intuitive at first sight but it must be right.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 12, 2015, 04:54:29 PM
@Mark E
Quote
For an instant, the velocity is zero.  The acceleration is in fact at a
maximum at that same instant.
When the velocity is zero the acceleration is zero however the force which is the cause of an acceleration is maximum. An acceleration is the rate of change of velocity in (meters per second) per second so if velocity is zero then acceleration is zero because there is no change.
 
On another note in my rush to devise a better way to remove the float in the tube I forgot one small detail. More float means less water, as such we are always losing water and the idea I proposed is unworkable. Any way we look at it the water which is displaced is the water which must be replaced... bummer.
 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 07:08:24 PM
On another note in my rush to devise a better way to remove the float in the tube I forgot one small detail. More float means less water, as such we are always losing water and the idea I proposed is unworkable. Any way we look at it the water which is displaced is the water which must be replaced... bummer.
 
AC

We need a float at the top and at the bottom that are self-synchronized (linked together), similar to this concept (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjO9bMe-tWA).  The tube will go through the bottom float and into the water.  As the water is displaced from the tube, the bottom float will rise and the top float will..... However, when we solve one problem then we create another problem, lol.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 09:56:38 PM
@Mark EWhen the velocity is zero the acceleration is zero however the force which is the cause of an acceleration is maximum. An acceleration is the rate of change of velocity in (meters per second) per second so if velocity is zero then acceleration is zero because there is no change.
 
On another note in my rush to devise a better way to remove the float in the tube I forgot one small detail. More float means less water, as such we are always losing water and the idea I proposed is unworkable. Any way we look at it the water which is displaced is the water which must be replaced... bummer.
 
AC
F = mA.  Where force is at a maximum, so is the acceleration, even if the velocity is zero.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 10:33:48 PM
F = mA.  Where force is at a maximum, so is the acceleration, even if the velocity is zero.

The force is zero, the acceleration is zero, and the velocity is zero.  Below is a snapshot of the results from an acceleration calculator.  I'm using the Planck time of 10-43 for the time interval in our equation.  However, we can use any time interval and it doesn't change the result.  So, we plug in the calculator's result of 0 into our force equation and we have F = m * 0, F = 0.  Acceleration only applies to a moving object.  Acceleration doesn't apply to a stationary object.  Saying the acceleration is at the maximum is another inversion of the truth.  Saying the Force is at the maximum is another inversion of the truth.

@minnie:  How many times will you allow yourself to be tricked by the same trickster?  Here's my motto, "Trick me once, shame on you.  Trick me twice, shame on me".

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 11:01:40 PM
The force is zero, the acceleration is zero, and the velocity is zero.  Below is a snapshot of the results from an acceleration calculator.  I'm using the Planck time of 10-43 for the time interval in our equation.  However, we can use any time interval and it doesn't change the result.  So, we plug in the calculator's result of 0 into our force equation and we have F = m x 0, F = 0.  Acceleration only applies to a moving object.  Acceleration doesn't apply to a stationary object.  Saying the acceleration is at the maximum is another inversion of the truth.  Saying the Force is at the maximum is another inversion of the truth.

@minnie:  How many times will you allow yourself to be tricked by the same trickster?  Here's my motto, "Trick me once, shame on you.  Trick me twice, shame on me".

Gravock
From AC:
Quote
Quote
When the velocity is zero the acceleration is zero however the force which is the cause of an acceleration is maximum.
F=mA still applies.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 12, 2015, 11:06:10 PM
@Gravityblock
You are correct because the correct statement is a Net or unbalanced Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. So yes obviously the Force acting on the mass is the sole cause as to why the mass moves and when the velocity changes we call this an acceleration. If the mass is not moving then there is no acceleration, thus the statement F=mA is false and Net F=mA is true.
 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 11:08:59 PM
F=mA still applies.

Acceleration only applies to moving objects, thus F=mA only applies to moving objects.  However, if you want to apply F=mA to a stationary object (which is absurd), then fine by me.  It doesn't change what it is, and that is an acceleration of 0, a force of 0, and a velocity of 0.  It is what it is!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 11:10:19 PM
@Gravityblock
You are correct because the correct statement is a Net or unbalanced Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. So yes obviously the Force acting on the mass is the sole cause as to why the mass moves and when the velocity changes we call this an acceleration. If the mass is not moving then there is no acceleration... obviously.
 
AC
That is not always true.  Very often it is false.  Please avail yourself to a primer in differential calculus. 
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 11:11:46 PM
Acceleration only applies to moving objects, thus F=mA only applies to moving objects.  However, if you want to apply F=mA to a stationary object (which is absurd), then fine by me.  It doesn't change what it is, and that is an acceleration of 0, a force of 0, and a velocity of 0.  It is what it is!

Gravock
That is worse than wrong.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 11:17:35 PM
That is worse than wrong.

Well, if you call the inversion of truth right, then I guess that is worse than wrong for you, LOL.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
Well, if you call the inversion of truth right, then I guess that is worse than wrong for you, LOL.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Gravock
You are free to try and find any authoritative reference that claims as you do that F=mA is conditional on V <> 0.  Or you can pick-up any physics primer and find that no such restriction is imposed.  If you have any doubts about this: you can sit down and either read or solve the equations of motion for a simple pendulum, or mass / spring combination.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 12, 2015, 11:26:34 PM
You are free to try and find any authoritative reference that claims as you do that F=mA is conditional on V <> 0.  Or you can pick-up any physics primer and find that no such restriction is imposed.  If you have any doubts about this: you can sit down and either read or solve the equations of motion for a simple pendulum, or mass / spring combination.

Like I said, restrictions or no restrictions.......the acceleration is 0, the force is 0, and the velocity is 0.  Either way, it's 0.  It is, what it is!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 12:05:52 AM
@Gravityblock
You are correct because the correct statement is a Net or unbalanced Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. So yes obviously the Force acting on the mass is the sole cause as to why the mass moves and when the velocity changes we call this an acceleration. If the mass is not moving then there is no acceleration, thus the statement F=mA is false and Net F=mA is true.
 
AC

F=mA is false and Net F=mA is true  <------ That is an elegant way of writing it!  This is so beautiful!  It's like poetry in motion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2015, 01:59:59 AM
Acceleration only applies to moving objects, thus F=mA only applies to moving objects.  However, if you want to apply F=mA to a stationary object (which is absurd), then fine by me.  It doesn't change what it is, and that is an acceleration of 0, a force of 0, and a velocity of 0.  It is what it is!

Gravock
Ah... no.

Gravity is an acceleration, the value of which is 9.8 meters per second per second. You will note that those units are the units of acceleration. A stationary object resting on a scale in a gravitational field, like in your post office, exerts a force downward on the scale, the value of which is F=mA, that is, the downward force on the scale is equal to the mass of the object times the gravitational acceleration in the post office. Everything is stationary, the mass is experiencing a downward acceleration and thus exerts a force (weight) on the scale.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/phys10/lectures/07_freefall.pdf



Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2015, 02:08:04 AM
<blockquote>
Quote
It is all dependent upon that one singular moment in time when a mass reaches the peak of it's upward motion then stops and becomes weightless. For a brief moment in time it acts like it's in outer space with little or no gravity rather than here on Earth. Think about that... no matter it's weight for a brief moment in time it is weightless.
</blockquote>
Quote
For an instant, the velocity is zero.  The acceleration is in fact at a maximum at that same instant.

No, that is not right either, neither one of you. Neglecting air friction, in a gravitational field like that of the Earth, if a mass is launched upward from the surface by, say, a spring, or out of a gun muzzle, then the mass is in _free fall_ and only under the acceleration of gravity, from the instant it departs the spring or gun muzzle until the instant it hits the ground again... where it is _still_ under the constant acceleration of gravity even though its velocity is once again zero.  The gravitational acceleration is always constant and always downward. During the upward _coasting_ travel of the object, the downward gravitational acceleration acts to reduce the velocity of the object until it comes to an "instantaneous" stop at the top of its arc. The gravitational acceleration is still there, is still constant, and now acts to accelerate the object downward.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 02:29:44 AM
<blockquote></blockquote>
No, that is not right either, neither one of you. Neglecting air friction, in a gravitational field like that of the Earth, if a mass is launched upward from the surface by, say, a spring, or out of a gun muzzle, then the mass is in _free fall_ and only under the acceleration of gravity, from the instant it departs the spring or gun muzzle until the instant it hits the ground again... where it is _still_ under the constant acceleration of gravity even though its velocity is once again zero.  The gravitational acceleration is always constant and always downward. During the upward _coasting_ travel of the object, the downward gravitational acceleration acts to reduce the velocity of the object until it comes to an "instantaneous" stop at the top of its arc. The gravitational acceleration is still there, is still constant, and now acts to accelerate the object downward.
I agree that is absolutely true for all projectiles.  My understanding was that AC was talking about building a harmonic oscillator.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 05:47:43 AM
Both TK and MarkE have conveniently left out the acceleration equation that is inside F=mA.  It's a common practice for MarkE and his minions to conveniently leave things out.  If the initial and final speed are both the same, then there is no acceleration, regardless of the value for the time interval. The acceleration equation and the result of that equation speaks for itself, as we see below.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 06:08:05 AM
If a force is being applied to an object (such as a gravitational force), and the object is resisting this force with the same intensity (such as being on the ground), then there is no net force and there is no acceleration, thus F=mA is false and Net F=mA is true.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 06:20:41 AM
Both TK and MarkE have conveniently left out the acceleration equation that is inside F=mA.  It's a common practice for MarkE and his minions to conveniently leave things out.  If the initial and final speed are both the same, then there is no acceleration, regardless of the value for the time interval. The acceleration equation and the result of that equation speaks for itself, as we see below.


Gravock
Once again you are worse than wrong.  Things can and do accelerate in one direction and later accelerate in the opposite direction with the effect that the starting and ending velocities are zero.  Yet, the acceleration and velocity values during the movement are both far from zero.  The simplest motion profile that a typical digital servo can execute is a triangular velocity ramp and double half parabolic relative position move:  AMAX from XSTART to ( XSTART + XEND )/2 and -AMAX from ( XSTART + XEND )/2 to XEND.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 06:51:06 AM
If a force is being applied to an object (such as a gravitational force), and the object is resisting this force with the same intensity (such as being on the ground), then there is no net force and there is no acceleration, thus F=mA is false and Net F=mA is true.

Gravock
A = (F1 + F2 ... FN)/m is indistinguishable mathematically and physically from:

A = F1/m + F2/m ... Fn/m.

Consequently, since there is no distinction between F=mA taking all F into account, and "Net F=mA" again taking all F into account one statement cannot be true and the other false.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 06:56:25 AM
Once again you are worse than wrong.  Things can and do accelerate in one direction and later accelerate in the opposite direction with the effect that the starting and ending velocities are zero.

You have now conveniently left out dV  = v1 - v0. 

dV = (5 minus -5) = 10  <-------the starting and ending velocities are not the same and does not equal 0, thus Net F=mA is True and F=mA is False

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 07:00:50 AM
You have now conveniently left out dV  = v1 - v0. 

dV = (5 minus - 5) = 10  <-------the starting and ending velocities are not the same and does not equal 0, thus Net F=mA is True and F=mA is False

Gravock
LOL.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 07:13:53 AM
A = (F1 + F2 ... FN)/m is indistinguishable mathematically and physically from:

A = F1/m + F2/m ... Fn/m.

Consequently, since there is no distinction between F=mA taking all F into account, and "Net F=mA" again taking all F into account one statement cannot be true and the other false.

There is a distinction between a Net Force and No Net Force.  To think otherwise is absurd.  Net F=mA does not take all F into account as you have wrongly and falsely asserted.  Net F=mA does not take into account a force that is being equally resisted with the same intensity of said force.  Thus, one statement is true and the other is false.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: raburgeson on August 13, 2015, 08:04:22 AM
Well get it working and on the shelf, we have a large group ready to buy. I can imagine smuggling this in. That is the way that we would have to bring in a 300 MPG VW.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 08:18:57 AM
There is a distinction between a Net Force and No Net Force.  To think otherwise is absurd.  Net F=mA does not take all F into account as you have wrongly and falsely asserted.  Net F=mA does not take into account a force that is being equally resisted with the same intensity of said force.  Thus, one statement is true and the other is false.

Gravock
LOL, forces obey linear superposition.  There is no mathematical and no physical difference between applying each force individually, or taking only the sum of all forces.  If one neglects to count all the forces, then one can apply for an accounting job at Enron.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 08:48:48 AM
LOL, forces obey linear superposition.  There is no mathematical and no physical difference between applying each force individually, or taking only the sum of all forces.  If one neglects to count all the forces, then one can apply for an accounting job at Enron.

You're neglecting to account for an object that is resisting a force with the same intensity of said force, thus there is no net force and no acceleration of this object.  Resistance is a force, and it is you is neglecting to count all the forces, not me.  This is another psychological projection by you.  You're definitely more than qualified for an accounting job an Enron.

There is a mathematical and physical difference between applying each force individually or taking only the sum of all forces.  There is a difference in throwing rocks from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions (taking only the sum of all forces), as compared to throwing rocks at different times in opposite directions (applying each force individually).  One results in a Net Force and a motion, and the other results in no net force and no motion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: TinselKoala on August 13, 2015, 10:08:11 AM
Both TK and MarkE have conveniently left out the acceleration equation that is inside F=mA.  It's a common practice for MarkE and his minions to conveniently leave things out.  If the initial and final speed are both the same, then there is no acceleration, regardless of the value for the time interval. The acceleration equation and the result of that equation speaks for itself, as we see below.

Gravock

I most certainly did NOT leave anything out. I showed, with checkable valid outside references, how the acceleration due to gravity IS the "A" in F=mA and produces the measurable and _calculatable_ weight that a stationary object exerts on a scale.  The equation F=mA is a definition, just like Ohm's Law is a definition. Both define each of three quantities in terms of the other two. Mass is that which responds to acceleration by a force. Acceleration is what happens when you apply a force to a mass. Force is the result of accelerating a mass. The force that we call "WEIGHT" is the result of a mass being _stationary_ in an accelerating field: that of gravity.
You can do the math, and see that it gives the correct answer. Under your mistaken assertions, the math yields incorrect and/or inconsistent answers.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 10:08:34 AM
You're neglecting to account for an object that is resisting a force with the same intensity of said force, thus there is no net force and no acceleration of this object.  Resistance is a force, and it is you is neglecting to count all the forces, not me.  This is another psychological projection by you.  You're definitely more than qualified for an accounting job an Enron.

There is a mathematical and physical difference between applying each force individually or taking only the sum of all forces.  There is a difference in throwing rocks from a boat simultaneously in opposite directions (taking only the sum of all forces), as compared to throwing rocks at different times in opposite directions (applying each force individually).  One results in a Net Force and a motion, and the other results in no net force and no motion.

Gravock
The equations I wrote tell all.  If you are intent on continuing to resist reality, flail away to no avail.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 10:24:17 AM
MarkE and TK has once again violated the principal of cause and effect!  They have violated the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. Newton's first law of dynamics states, “Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change this state by forces impressed upon it”.  In this statement, we see at once a violation of the principle of the cause and effect relationships.

Motion is a result of a net force, but it is missing in Newton’s first law; there is no mathematical model of this law, which describes its constant movement in space, but a body ignores it and moves with constant velocity V. The discrepancies being described are a cause of a violation of the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. This principle requires a description of the process or the phenomenon from its very beginning, not from the middle.

In order to return the principle of the cause and effect relationships into the former Newtonian dynamics, it is necessary to put the law of the accelerated motion of a body to the first place.  As a result, we’ll get a new dynamics. In order to differentiate it from the old dynamics, Kanarev calls it “Mechanodynamics (http://overunity.com/Kanarev's "Introduction to Mechanodynamics.)”.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 10:31:39 AM
MarkE and TK has once again violated the principal of cause and effect!  They have violated the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. Newton's first law of dynamics states, “Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change this state by forces impressed upon it”.  In this statement, we see at once a violation of the principle of the cause and effect relationships.

Any motion is a result of a net force, but it is missing in Newton’s first law; there is no mathematical model of this law, which describes its constant movement in space, but a body ignores it and moves with constant velocity V. The discrepancies being described are a cause of a violation of the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. This principle requires a description of the process or the phenomenon from its very beginning, not from the middle.


In order to return the principle of the cause and effect relationships into the former Newtonian dynamics, it is necessary to put the law of the accelerated motion of a body to the first place.  As a result, we’ll get a new dynamics. In order to differentiate it from the old dynamics, Kanarev calls it “Mechanodynamics (http://overunity.com/Kanarev's "Introduction to Mechanodynamics.)”.

Gravock
Funny isn't it then that Newtonian mechanics work just fine up until we get to relativistic speeds?  You can keep preaching BS as long and in as loud a voice as you like.  If you can't find situations where your proposed ideas generate correct answers and Newtonian mechanics don't, then your ideas are in deep trouble.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 13, 2015, 10:49:47 AM



  Nice to see some "down to earth" input from the old eucalyptus browser.
  In the end we'll probably settle on a good old spring for our oscillator.
          John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 10:51:43 AM
Funny isn't it then that Newtonian mechanics work just fine up until we get to relativistic speeds?  You can keep preaching BS as long and in as loud a voice as you like.  If you can't find situations where your proposed ideas generate correct answers and Newtonian mechanics don't, then your ideas are in deep trouble.

Another false assertion by you.  Newtonian mechanics work just fine at relativistic speeds.  So, it is your ideas which are in deep trouble, and not mine.  The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2.  Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence, the equation E = mc2.  In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy, but you apparently have never recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by the spin.  As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2015, 11:22:34 AM
Another false assertion by you.  Newtonian mechanics work just fine at relativistic speeds.  So, it is your ideas which are in deep trouble, and not mine.  The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c2. This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c2.  Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c2 in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence, the equation E = mc2.  In this way, c2 is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc2, always included the spin energy, but you apparently have never recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by the spin.  As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v2. The term v2 transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength.

Gravock
LOL.  That's quite the salad you've tossed.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 13, 2015, 11:37:32 AM
LOL.  That's quite the salad you've tossed.

This salad was prepared from a good tree, the tree of life (truth), and is good to eat.  Why do you continue to eat from a poisonous tree, a tree of false knowledge and lies. It is you who have tossed the salad, and not me.  You should taste it before tossing it out.  However, it will probably taste bitter to you, for you have put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 13, 2015, 10:21:34 PM



  gravityblock,
              if you've sorted relativistic wave equations, good on you!!
 The thing now is how do you change the world?
         John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 14, 2015, 02:09:11 AM
@minnie
Quote
The thing now is how do you change the world?


One step at a time...preferably moving forward. Which raises the question how can we move forward if we are stuck in the past?. I think one scholar had it right, we do not move forward because a new idea is truly accepted we we move forward when those who oppose new idea's grow old and die. So yes it is a waiting game of sorts and much of the nonsense debated here will be debated in the future in the same light as those in the past. Stupid old men debating antiquated concepts by whale oil lamp dictating notes with a quill ink pen... and we are them only the context has changed.




The thing to remember is that while you and I may believe we may understand many things within the context of our ever so short existence here, 85 years give or take, it is but a drop in the ocean. As well some may believe our children can do no better but intuitively we know they will... they will do impossible things we cannot even imagine.




So we should enjoy our own ignorance while we can because those little devil's we call our children will not be buying into our stupidity. I can see that little twinkle in there eye... that same twinkle I had so many years ago when I knew my father was a genius compared to most but I had learned more new things than he would ever know.



So yes have fun with it but do not believe our ignorance will prevail in the future, it is but a stepping stone to greater things we cannot imagine. The trick here is imagining what they might before they do which means your not behind the learning curve but slightly ahead of it...progress. It should be understood that in this day and age with the exponential growth of knowledge growing as it is if your not moving forward learning new things at a fantastic rate your actually falling behind. At which point we might add a little of Einsteins relativity to the equation. If mankind's understanding is moving forward growing at an exponential rate and we are not moving forward at all then where do you think we will be relative to them next year?.  My only answer is...Lost in transition.






AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2015, 05:16:33 AM
@minnie

One step at a time...preferably moving forward. Which raises the question how can we move forward if we are stuck in the past?. I think one scholar had it right, we do not move forward because a new idea is truly accepted we we move forward when those who oppose new idea's grow old and die. So yes it is a waiting game of sorts and much of the nonsense debated here will be debated in the future in the same light as those in the past. Stupid old men debating antiquated concepts by whale oil lamp dictating notes with a quill ink pen... and we are them only the context has changed.




The thing to remember is that while you and I may believe we may understand many things within the context of our ever so short existence here, 85 years give or take, it is but a drop in the ocean. As well some may believe our children can do no better but intuitively we know they will... they will do impossible things we cannot even imagine.




So we should enjoy our own ignorance while we can because those little devil's we call our children will not be buying into our stupidity. I can see that little twinkle in there eye... that same twinkle I had so many years ago when I knew my father was a genius compared to most but I had learned more new things than he would ever know.



So yes have fun with it but do not believe our ignorance will prevail in the future, it is but a stepping stone to greater things we cannot imagine. The trick here is imagining what they might before they do which means your not behind the learning curve but slightly ahead of it...progress. It should be understood that in this day and age with the exponential growth of knowledge growing as it is if your not moving forward learning new things at a fantastic rate your actually falling behind. At which point we might add a little of Einsteins relativity to the equation. If mankind's understanding is moving forward growing at an exponential rate and we are not moving forward at all then where do you think we will be relative to them next year?.  My only answer is...Lost in transition.






AC
How about evaluating ideas on the basis of reliable evidence?
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 14, 2015, 02:49:32 PM
@Mark E
Quote
How about evaluating ideas on the basis of reliable evidence?


What is evidence?, I know many people in the oil patch who were driving so drunk that when the cops stopped them they literally fell out of there truck. They never received a fine, no jail time and they were driving the next month. They told me they were guilty as hell but their expensive lawyers could show evidence that apparently ... they were not guilty?...go figure.




You see there is no reliable evidence when anyone can simply change the context of the facts to suit their own beliefs or interests. Evidence is always open to interpretation by those who have something to gain from their own interpretation. So while your "reliable evidence" scenario sounds good in theory I have found it seldom works as planned in reality. Your reliable evidence theory is simply not reliable, lol.










AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2015, 03:01:35 PM
@Mark E

What is evidence?, I know many people in the oil patch who were driving so drunk that when the cops stopped them they literally fell out of there truck. They never received a fine, no jail time and they were driving the next month. They told me they were guilty as hell but their expensive lawyers could show evidence that apparently ... they were not guilty?...go figure.




You see there is no reliable evidence when anyone can simply change the context of the facts to suit their own beliefs or interests. Evidence is always open to interpretation by those who have something to gain from their own interpretation. So while your "reliable evidence" scenario sounds good in theory I have found it seldom works as planned in reality. Your reliable evidence theory is simply not reliable, lol.










AC
Is is straw man Friday?  What on earth do the inequities of the legal system have to do with scientific inquiry?   
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 14, 2015, 04:18:16 PM
@MarkE
Quote
Is is straw man Friday?  What on earth do the inequities of the legal system
have to do with scientific inquiry?
People... obviously.
Science and scientific inquiry will always rely on the perspectives and interpretations of observations by people. I understand some may like to portray science as an all knowing all seeing entity in itself not unlike a religion to serve their interests however it is simply a process. This forum is a perfect example and it boggles the mind that so many could have such different views of a simple equation such as F=mA.
There is also that little issue of 47% of scientists who have falsified data or know someone who has in the past... so what is reliable evidence again?. You see it's hard to believe in reliable evidence and the purists view of scientific inquiry when we see almost one half of the scientific community is effectively making up shit as they go along. 47% is a pretty big number Mark... what do you think of that?, I find it incredible.
 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2015, 04:24:41 PM
@MarkEPeople... obviously.
Science and scientific inquiry will always rely on the perspectives and interpretations of observations by people. I understand some may like to portray science as an all knowing all seeing entity in itself not unlike a religion to serve their interests however it is simply a process. This forum is a perfect example and it boggles the mind that so many could have such different views of a simple equation such as F=mA.
There is also that little issue of 47% of scientists who have falsified data or know someone who has in the past... so what is reliable evidence again?. You see it's hard to believe in reliable evidence and the purists view of scientific inquiry when we see almost one half of the scientific community is effectively making up shit as they go along. 47% is a pretty big number Mark... what do you think of that?, I find it incredible.
 
AC
You really need to get a grip on the scientific method and how it specifically works to detach research from human foibles of bias and prejudice.  If someone falsifies data, then such things eventually come to light when others attempt to reproduce the faker run into discrepancies.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 14, 2015, 05:28:38 PM
@MarkE
Quote
You really need to get a grip on the scientific method and how it
specifically works to detach research from human foibles of bias and prejudice. 
If someone falsifies data, then such things eventually come to light when others
attempt to reproduce the faker run into discrepancies.

I think I have a pretty good idea of how it is supposed to work as well as how it doesn't in reality. For instance I read a pretty comical article a while back concerning the peer review process. A researcher presented a paper for review and a few years later it was found that there was conflicting data presented. Then when the researcher was questioned he said his thesis was not the paper in question but another paper showing that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed because very few papers are read and even less actually verified... brilliant. The researcher essentially wrote a paper in which everything was fabricated and substantiated by a prior paper in which everything was also fabricated. Not unlike many accepted theories which are also based on a foundation of quicksand.

It would seem the process is inherently flawed and many "scientists" are recieving large grants and investment funds based on nothing but vaporware. It sounds very much like pseudo-science in my opinion. Obviously the real issue here is not science but people who have bought into the religion of professionalism and credibility rather than hard facts which are proven beyond all shadow of doubt. You see I cannot believe you Mark for the same reasons you do not believe others because what your implying lacks credibility in light of the facts.
 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2015, 08:10:55 PM
@MarkE
I think I have a pretty good idea of how it is supposed to work as well as how it doesn't in reality. For instance I read a pretty comical article a while back concerning the peer review process. A researcher presented a paper for review and a few years later it was found that there was conflicting data presented. Then when the researcher was questioned he said his thesis was not the paper in question but another paper showing that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed because very few papers are read and even less actually verified... brilliant. The researcher essentially wrote a paper in which everything was fabricated and substantiated by a prior paper in which everything was also fabricated. Not unlike many accepted theories which are also based on a foundation of quicksand.

It would seem the process is inherently flawed and many "scientists" are recieving large grants and investment funds based on nothing but vaporware. It sounds very much like pseudo-science in my opinion. Obviously the real issue here is not science but people who have bought into the religion of professionalism and credibility rather than hard facts which are proven beyond all shadow of doubt. You see I cannot believe you Mark for the same reasons you do not believe others because what your implying lacks credibility in light of the facts.
 
AC
With billions of humans on the planet there will always be exceptions.  Those exceptions tend to prove the rule of just how well the scientific method actually works.  Look around you at the technology advancement of the past: 5/10/20/50/100 years.  If the scientific method were doing a poor job of filtering out mistakes and fraud, technology development would have stumbled rather than accelerated.  When was the last time that we had an embarrassment along the lines of "Q Rays"? BTW the scientific method caught "Q Rays". 

It is the more speculative areas where hard data is difficult to obtain and hypotheses are difficult to verify where controversy exists for protracted periods.  That is not a failing of the scientific method.  It is in fact the scientific method that will ultimately resolve such controversies.  Politics enters where large sums of money get involved and decisions affecting those sums of money will be made before adequate reliable data can be obtained.

I don't ask people to "believe me".  I present what I understand as the facts and others are free to take exception.  Ultimately, using the scientific method: reliable data arbitrates the truth and what I think / argue or what anyone else thinks / argues doesn't matter.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 14, 2015, 08:13:57 PM
Well said AC, and it can be summed up in two words, "willful ignorance"

Willful Ignorance:

The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs, and/or to forward a hidden agenda.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 14, 2015, 09:17:24 PM
MarkE,

You are in a quagmire, as AC would say, and the more you try to climb out of it, the more you'll sink into it.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 14, 2015, 09:18:39 PM



  It's just human nature to "pull a fast one". It happens in all walks of life and causes trouble.
When something is blatantly wrong it gets Sussed sooner or later.
  I'm a farmer and in this country we have a massive problem with TB. in cattle. Infected
animals must be slaughtered, they're tagged with a special eartag. This clever farmer tried
to swap tags so he could save a valuable animal and he got found out and I think in the end
he took his own life. This is the smart bit, in the process of inserting the tag a small piece of
tissue is removed and compared with the animal presented to be slaughtered.
  When I was a kid transfer resistors weren't invented and the technology around then was
such that something like a cell phone was in the realm of science fiction. You could get a
portable radio but you had a huge 120 v battery and a 2 v filament battery. Now try and
explain how the scientific method isn't working.
   I can't see how much faulty work can get through,if you try and do something with duff
information it's usually fairly obvious because things just don't work. These days with the
wonderful communications we have thousands of people get the chance to look over things
and rubbish is soon rejected.
           John.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 14, 2015, 10:16:17 PM
Look around you at the technology advancement of the past: 5/10/20/50/100 years.  If the scientific method were doing a poor job of filtering out mistakes and fraud, technology development would have stumbled rather than accelerated.

You once again have it backwards.  Technology hasn't accelerated due to the scientific method of filtering out mistakes and fraud, but by what has been allowed to pass through the filters of the scientific method, which is controlled by TPTB.  Technology has been released in order for TPTB to remain in control of the world's population.  Technology at this time, is the only way for them to remain in control.  I suggest you watch the Illuminati training video I posted earlier in this thread.  In my next post, I'll provide facts and evidence in how the TPTB knew of time dilation, length contraction, relativity theory eons before Einstein published the GR and SR theories.  Einstein only published and made public GR and SR theory, which had been previously hidden from the general public for eons, and was a pawn to push the hidden agenda of TPTB!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 14, 2015, 10:20:10 PM
MarkE,

Time dilation, length contraction, GR, SR, and the value for the speed of light itself have been coded in the ancient manuscripts.  This has been suppressed and hidden from the general public by TPTB for eons.  One day in the eyes of our Creator in heaven is as a thousand years in the eyes of those who are on the earth.  The velocity required to time warp a 24 hour period in the eyes of our Creator so it passes through 1000 earth years is equal to the speed of light.  In the eyes of our Creator, Adam did die in the same day he ate from the tree of knowledge.

2 Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Ge 2:16-17 - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 14, 2015, 10:35:04 PM
@minnie
Quote
It's just human nature to "pull a fast one". It happens in all walks of life
and causes trouble.
When something is blatantly wrong it gets Sussed sooner
or later.
I would agree, I just get a little irritated when it is implied that we should just believe a person or group because they may belong to a certain group. We have big problems that are not being addressed because some believe certain groups should not be questioned where I question everything and everyone. In any case my problem is not science persay but people who abuse it and on that matter I think we can all agree.
 
AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 14, 2015, 11:05:28 PM
Mankind has allowed itself to be endlessly tricked over and over again by the same trickster, and MarkE is a promoter and student of the trickster.  The trickster is the teacher and father of all other crackpots, and is the biggest crackpot of all!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: minnie on August 14, 2015, 11:13:17 PM

 In this country a few years ago everyone had a Nokia phone.
 The government is desperate to Frack, the people don't want
It.
If you want help from God, ask Wayne Travis - he knows!
What about TPTB?
J.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 14, 2015, 11:23:50 PM
If you want help from God, ask Wayne Travis - he knows!
What about TPTB?
J.

A statement by Wayne on their website says:

In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.  We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.

It's now 2015 (7 years later), so where is it?  It either doesn't work as claimed, or it's currently being suppressed by TPTB, at which time it may be released to the public in the future if/when TPTB decides it can further their own hidden agenda.  And, assuming it does work as claimed, then who's to say Wayne isn't another pawn for TPTB as Einstein was?

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 12:06:38 AM
Minnie,

I must say, the "Travis effect" is really interesting.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention!  It clearly shows there's a greater force in regards to the potential difference between the atmospheric pressure and the gravitational force, which is in-line with what I have been saying.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 12:23:13 AM
I'm now is search of another document that was deliberately deleted from my computer by my ex g/f that will put this debate to rest.  This document won't be as easy to find as the other document. :(

However, I will find it.... :)

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 12:32:18 AM
@minnieI would agree, I just get a little irritated when it is implied that we should just believe a person or group because they may belong to a certain group.
Who says such things?
Quote
We have big problems that are not being addressed because some believe certain groups should not be questioned where I question everything and everyone. In any case my problem is not science persay but people who abuse it and on that matter I think we can all agree.
Appeal to authority is just another logical fallacy.
Quote

AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 12:35:56 AM
A statement by Wayne on their website says:

In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
The claim is false.
Quote
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
The claim is false.
Quote
  We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
The data collection claims were circa 2012.  To this day Wayne Travis does not have any machine that self-powers and delivers surplus energy as he claims.
Quote

It's now 2015 (7 years later), so where is it?  It either doesn't work as claimed, or it's currently being suppressed by TPTB, at which time it may be released to the public in the future if/when TPTB decides it can further their own hidden agenda.  And, assuming it does work as claimed, then who's to say Wayne isn't another pawn for TPTB as Einstein was?
LOL, sure that's it, the crackpots are stooges for the TPTB.  You should think on that proposition of yours long and hard.
Quote

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 12:37:08 AM
Minnie,

I must say, the "Travis effect" is really interesting.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention!  It clearly shows there's a greater force in regards to the potential difference between the atmospheric pressure and the gravitational force, which is in-line with what I have been saying.

Gravock
Perhaps you would be good enough to describe the "Travis Effect" and how it represents anything other than ordinary buoyancy.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 12:38:52 AM
Appeal to authority is just another logical fallacy.

It is you who has been requesting empirical evidence from an authoritative source, thus it is you who has been making the appeals to authority.  This is your logical fallacy and not ours.  MarkE proves himself wrong once again, ROFLMAO!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 12:41:44 AM
It is you who has been requesting empirical evidence from an authoritative source, thus it is you who has been making the appeals to authority.  This is your logical fallacy and not ours.  MarkE proves himself wrong once again, ROFLMAO!

Gravock
LOL, apparently you either do not understand what appeal to authority is or choose to misrepresent it.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 12:43:19 AM
Perhaps you would be good enough to describe the "Travis Effect" and how it represents anything other than ordinary buoyancy.

Reducing the volume of air by 40, has the same lifting force.  This doesn't represent ordinary buoyancy as currently accepted.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 12:50:39 AM
You are free to try and find any authoritative reference that claims as you do that F=mA is conditional on V <> 0.  Or you can pick-up any physics primer and find that no such restriction is imposed.

If this isn't making an appeal to the authorities, then I don't know what is.  This is your logical fallacy, and not ours!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 15, 2015, 02:11:04 AM
@MarkE
Speaking of an appeal to authority or rather an abuse of non-existent authority on your part. You proceeded to take what I said out of context then a few posts later claim that everything Gravityblock had mentioned was a false claim despite the fact you have no tangible proof of anything either way. No offense but you seem to be proving GB's claims concerning your metal state in spades. So let me make this clear Mark... you my friend are not an authority on anything so far as I know and I do not recognize you as such until you can prove otherwise.




So if you have tangible proof of your claims show it otherwise I must reject your claims for the same reason you might reject mine. In short put up or shut up because you seem to be spamming multiple threads with incoherent gibberish just as you have accused many others of doing. I understand some might buy into your well spoken BS but I hold to the very same premise you do. Show me proof of your claims otherwise I must reject them...Period...End of debate because there is no actual debate.



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 03:45:47 AM
@MarkE
Show me proof of your claims otherwise I must reject them...Period...End of debate because there is no actual debate.

MarkE must also show proof that gravity is an individualized force and not a combination of phenomena as below.  IMO, the "Travis effect" suggests that the gravitational force is a combination of phenomena instead of an individualized force.

1.) Pressure: As a body on or within the vicinity of the earth cannot be subject to an equal pressure in all directions, the Earth always shielding it from this pressure on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth.  2.) Magnetism: The attraction that the vertical component of magnetism exerts on a body is, with small variations, the same as that on any other body. Thus it is that the speed of fall in a vacuum is constant. However, this attraction is not due to mass, it is caused by the magnetism with which the whole body is endowed. 3.) Temperature:  You can prove that a magnet loses its properties on being heated. As matter is made up of stationary waves, heat has a powerful influence on them. By increasing the frequency of these waves they begin to give off light.  Smoke from a cigar is heavier than the surrounding air, yet it rises as the result of warmth. That is to say the difference in density is compensated for by the temperature of the smoke.  4.) Density:  We can see that a balloon full of hydrogen gas rises, according to the volume of the gas.  That is to say, bodies of lesser density always tend to rise, in the same way that water and oil separate, due to density. Gravity does not prevent bodies of lesser density from rising. Whereas in air, which is of low density, heavy objects fall rapidly. In water, more dense than air, they fall more slowly.  Moreover, it is well known that heat reduces the density of a body. It should be noted that heat is a factor which affects gravity, not because it is itself an agent causing the phenomena of gravity, but because it influences magnetism and density.  Pressure also influences density, thus it affects gravity.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 03:58:19 AM
If this isn't making an appeal to the authorities, then I don't know what is.  This is your logical fallacy, and not ours!

Gravock
LOL, yes apparently you don't know what an appeal to authority is.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 04:01:50 AM
@MarkE
Speaking of an appeal to authority or rather an abuse of non-existent authority on your part. You proceeded to take what I said out of context then a few posts later claim that everything Gravityblock had mentioned was a false claim despite the fact you have no tangible proof of anything either way. No offense but you seem to be proving GB's claims concerning your metal state in spades. So let me make this clear Mark... you my friend are not an authority on anything so far as I know and I do not recognize you as such until you can prove otherwise.
LOL, I have never asserted that anyone must accept my conclusions based on my qualifications, or the qualifications of anyone else.
Quote




So if you have tangible proof of your claims show it otherwise I must reject your claims for the same reason you might reject mine. In short put up or shut up because you seem to be spamming multiple threads with incoherent gibberish just as you have accused many others of doing. I understand some might buy into your well spoken BS but I hold to the very same premise you do. Show me proof of your claims otherwise I must reject them...Period...End of debate because there is no actual debate.
I have for each position I have offered pointed to the relevant evidence.  If you and/or GB want to proverbially dance around with your fingers stuck in your ears you are free to do so.
Quote



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 04:02:47 AM
MarkE must also show proof that gravity is an individualized force and not a combination of phenomena as below.  IMO, the "Travis effect" suggests that the gravitational force is a combination of phenomena instead of an individualized force.

1.) Pressure: As a body on or within the vicinity of the earth cannot be subject to an equal pressure in all directions, the Earth always shielding it from this pressure on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth.  2.) Magnetism: The attraction that the vertical component of magnetism exerts on a body is, with small variations, the same as that on any other body. Thus it is that the speed of fall in a vacuum is constant. However, this attraction is not due to mass, it is caused by the magnetism with which the whole body is endowed. 3.) Temperature:  You can prove that a magnet loses its properties on being heated. As matter is made up of stationary waves, heat has a powerful influence on them. By increasing the frequency of these waves they begin to give off light.  Smoke from a cigar is heavier than the surrounding air, yet it rises as the result of warmth. That is to say the difference in density is compensated for by the temperature of the smoke.  4.) Density:  We can see that a balloon full of hydrogen gas rises, according to the volume of the gas.  That is to say, bodies of lesser density always tend to rise, in the same way that water and oil separate, due to density. Gravity does not prevent bodies of lesser density from rising. Whereas in air, which is of low density, heavy objects fall rapidly. In water, more dense than air, they fall more slowly.  Moreover, it is well known that heat reduces the density of a body. It should be noted that heat is a factor which affects gravity, not because it is itself an agent causing the phenomena of gravity, but because it influences magnetism and density.  Pressure also influences density, thus it affects gravity.

Gravock
Welcome to fallacy dome.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 04:06:58 AM
Welcome to fallacy dome.

Another assertion by you with no scientific or mathematical rebuttal.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 15, 2015, 04:33:15 AM
MarkE must also show proof that gravity is an individualized force and not a combination of phenomena as below.  IMO, the "Travis effect" suggests that the gravitational force is a combination of phenomena instead of an individualized force.

1.) Pressure: As a body on or within the vicinity of the earth cannot be subject to an equal pressure in all directions, the Earth always shielding it from this pressure on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth.  2.) Magnetism: The attraction that the vertical component of magnetism exerts on a body is, with small variations, the same as that on any other body. Thus it is that the speed of fall in a vacuum is constant. However, this attraction is not due to mass, it is caused by the magnetism with which the whole body is endowed. 3.) Temperature:  You can prove that a magnet loses its properties on being heated. As matter is made up of stationary waves, heat has a powerful influence on them. By increasing the frequency of these waves they begin to give off light.  Smoke from a cigar is heavier than the surrounding air, yet it rises as the result of warmth. That is to say the difference in density is compensated for by the temperature of the smoke.  4.) Density:  We can see that a balloon full of hydrogen gas rises, according to the volume of the gas.  That is to say, bodies of lesser density always tend to rise, in the same way that water and oil separate, due to density. Gravity does not prevent bodies of lesser density from rising. Whereas in air, which is of low density, heavy objects fall rapidly. In water, more dense than air, they fall more slowly.  Moreover, it is well known that heat reduces the density of a body. It should be noted that heat is a factor which affects gravity, not because it is itself an agent causing the phenomena of gravity, but because it influences magnetism and density.  Pressure also influences density, thus it affects gravity.

Gravock

Geeze.  Just glancing at your post tells me you need to take a remedial physics class.  A hydrogen balloon does not "rise" it is more proper to say that it is pushed up by the denser material surrounding it (air) until it reaches equilibrium. (a specific altitude based upon the air density)

Where are you reading this crap and why are you believing it to be true?

Pressure does not affect gravity.  Gravity is a constant, the effects of which can be influenced by a medium but it is NOT proper to say that gravity itself is influenced.  This demonstrates a less than remedial understanding of basic physics.

Thanks for showing us what you do not know.  Now I am sure I do not need to take you seriously.

Bill

***EDIT***

I don't mean to sound harsh.  It just gets to me when folks make claims that known physics is wrong and try to explain what really is going on without any scientific experimental proof.  Sure, "known science" is just that.  It is what is "known" at any given time.  But, to advance that knowledge or change it requires really strong scientific experimental evidence.  AC will ask who gets to decide what is real evidence?  Minnie has it correct when he said (paraphrasing) look at the technological developments that actually work based upon this "known science."  When folks claim that science is wrong, I find it funny that they are typing this on a computer, and internet system designed upon those principles that clearly demonstrates that it does indeed work.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 04:47:45 AM
Geeze.  Just glancing at your post tells me you need to take a remedial physics class.  A hydrogen balloon does not "rise" it is more proper to say that it is pushed up by the denser material surrounding it (air) until it reaches equilibrium. (a specific altitude based upon the air density)

Where are you reading this crap and why are you believing it to be true?

Pressure does not affect gravity.  Gravity is a constant, the effects of which can be influenced by a medium but it is NOT proper to say that gravity itself is influenced.  This demonstrates a less than remedial understanding of basic physics.

Thanks for showing us what you do not know.  Now I am sure I do not need to take you seriously.

Bill

Another inversion of the truth!  Thanks for showing us what you thought you knew, but in reality didn't know.  I hope you're not taking yourself seriously, LOL.  High resolution maps of Earth’s surprisingly inconsistent gravity field (http://io9.com/new-high-res-maps-of-earth-s-surprisingly-inconsistent-1171851670). (video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQTKGMY5Bxc))

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 15, 2015, 05:00:24 AM
Another inversion of the truth!  Thanks for showing us what you thought you knew, but in reality didn't know.  High resolution maps of Earth’s surprisingly inconsistent gravity field (http://io9.com/new-high-res-maps-of-earth-s-surprisingly-inconsistent-1171851670). (video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQTKGMY5Bxc))

Gravock

Well, there are anomalies attributed to the varying density of the earth at any given point.  Gravity is a function of mass and, in various places on the earth that does indeed vary.  But, gravity, a constant, does not vary.  It is the mass that creates the gravity in the first place that is changing....although very, very little.  If it really made a difference, a satellite would change its orbit depending upon what area of the earth it was overflying at the time.  I do not believe this happens in a manner that makes any appreciable difference in the satellite's orbit.

Bill

"George P. Dvorsky is a Canadian bioethicist, transhumanist, and futurist. He is a contributing editor at io9 and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast."  So, this is the fellow that made the post where you copied that map?  OK, I can clearly see where we need to through out everything known in science and believe this guy......what credentials!

Look at the sources you are using here.  I mean...really?
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 05:12:19 AM
Well, there are anomalies attributed to the varying density of the earth at any given point.  Gravity is a function of mass and, in various places on the earth that does indeed vary.  But, gravity, a constant, does not vary.  It is the mass that creates the gravity in the first place that is changing....although very, very little.  If it really made a difference, a satellite would change its orbit depending upon what area of the earth it was overflying at the time.  I do not believe this happens in a manner that makes any appreciable difference in the satellite's orbit.

Bill

As we can clearly see in the map and video, the density, temperature, pressure, and magnetism has an effect on the gravitational force.  This and the Travis effect are both in-line with gravity being a combination of phenomenon and not an individualized force.  The attraction that the vertical component of magnetism exerts on a body is, with small variations, the same as that on any other body. Thus it is that the speed of fall in a vacuum is constant. However, this attraction is not due to mass, it is caused by the magnetism with which the whole body is endowed.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 05:24:30 AM
MarkE must also show proof that gravity is an individualized force and not a combination of phenomena as below.  IMO, the "Travis effect" suggests that the gravitational force is a combination of phenomena instead of an individualized force.

1.) Pressure: As a body on or within the vicinity of the earth cannot be subject to an equal pressure in all directions, the Earth always shielding it from this pressure on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth.

A sphere of water in micro-gravity clearly shows the internal pressure within the universe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxyfiBGCwhQ).  Water in micro-gravity, experiences an equal pressure in all directions and forms into a sphere.  The earth, always shielding a body from this internal pressure of the universe on one side, the body feels a difference in the forces acting upon it and falls to the surface of the Earth.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 05:47:07 AM
Bill,

The variances in the gravitational pull around the earth is much greater than originally thought.  Thus, these variances can't be attributed to mass.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 06:13:25 AM
The mass density (http://www.energeticforum.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDensity) of a material varies with temperature and pressure.  Increasing the pressure on an object decreases the volume of the object and thus increases its density. Increasing the temperature of a substance (with a few exceptions) decreases its density by increasing its volume.

Micro-gravity Combustion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTl7oi05dQ&NR=1) (video).  Once again, it forms into a spherical diffusion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 15, 2015, 06:24:09 AM
@MarkE
Quote
I have never asserted that anyone must accept my conclusions based on my qualifications, or the qualifications of anyone else.


So when you say this or that is a false clam what do you mean by this exactly if it is not an assertion that you believe the facts are false in some way?. I mean do you have tangible proof it is false or is this just some random guess on your part based on your own personal beliefs. I mean do you have tangible proof or not so much?.






Quote
I have for each position I have offered pointed to the relevant evidence.  If you and/or GB want to proverbially dance around with your fingers stuck in your ears you are free to do so.


That is your assertion which is false in my opinion because you have offered nothing in the way of tangible proof nor evidence of any kind and have simply implied that evidence must be relevant through a second party. I mean really Mark?, you do not honestly think I would believe anything you say when it is presented in the same context as everyone else?. Again I understand the tone in which you express your opinions may impress others but I am very much unimpressed because I rely on content and context which you seem to be lacking at the moment.


So may assert anything you want or imply you have asserted nothing but the fact remains you have no tangible proof of anything. In any case I would have to assume that somehow you get off on these mind games you may think impress others however as I said I am very much unimpressed so this conversation is over so far as I am concerned because it is ridiculous.






AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 06:36:13 AM
A variation of the Cavendish experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lzd86ZYf_o) shows gravity may be a pushing force instead of a pulling force.  However, I don't subscribe to the pico-graviton theory.  Regardless, pressure is a factor in all of this.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 06:46:04 AM
Nobody can equate problems without weighing all the factors which lead to their solution.

Graock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 08:17:50 AM
@MarkE

So when you say this or that is a false clam what do you mean by this exactly if it is not an assertion that you believe the facts are false in some way?. I mean do you have tangible proof it is false or is this just some random guess on your part based on your own personal beliefs. I mean do you have tangible proof or not so much?.







That is your assertion which is false in my opinion because you have offered nothing in the way of tangible proof nor evidence of any kind and have simply implied that evidence must be relevant through a second party. I mean really Mark?, you do not honestly think I would believe anything you say when it is presented in the same context as everyone else?. Again I understand the tone in which you express your opinions may impress others but I am very much unimpressed because I rely on content and context which you seem to be lacking at the moment.


So may assert anything you want or imply you have asserted nothing but the fact remains you have no tangible proof of anything. In any case I would have to assume that somehow you get off on these mind games you may think impress others however as I said I am very much unimpressed so this conversation is over so far as I am concerned because it is ridiculous.






AC
So jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "nah, nah, nah" it is to be.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 08:31:36 AM
A variation of the Cavendish experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lzd86ZYf_o) shows gravity may be a pushing force instead of a pulling force.  However, I don't subscribe to the pico-graviton theory.  Regardless, pressure is a factor in all of this.

Gravock
If you are going to go off pushing autodynamics now, you will find that it has been falsified.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 08:35:48 AM
If you are going to go off pushing autodynamics now, you will find that it has been falsified.

Can you please provide a reference link to back up your assertion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 08:36:46 AM
Can you please provide a reference link to back up your assertion.

Gravock
Start with Noyes work.
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 08:42:48 AM
Start with Noyes work.

In other words, you can't provide the reference link directly to back up your assertion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 08:54:46 AM
MarkE,

I referred specifically to the modified Cavendish experiment and never referred to the theory of autodynamics itself.  I also stated I didn't subscribe to the pico-graviton theory.  Please provide a reference link to back up your assertion that the modified Cavendish experiment itself has been falsified.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 09:01:49 AM
More smoke and mirrors from MarkE!

Smoke and mirrors:

01: Something/Someone that deceives or distorts the truth.
02: Something/Someone that distorts or blurs facts ,figures, etc., like a magic or conjuring work; artful deception; tricky inventiveness.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 09:02:47 AM
Are you suffering reading comprehension problems?
Quote
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 08:31:36 AM

    If you are going to go off pushing autodynamics now, you will find that it has been falsified.


Can you please provide a reference link to back up your assertion.

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 09:09:12 AM
Are you suffering reading comprehension problems?

It is you, who is suffering from poor reading comprehension, and not me.  I never pushed autodynamics as you falsely asserted.  Like I said, you blatantly attempted to distort or blur the facts by referring to autodynamics instead of referring to the modified Cavendish experiment itself.  More smoke and mirrors from you!

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: gravityblock on August 15, 2015, 09:47:38 AM
George P. Dvorsky is a Canadian bioethicist, transhumanist, and futurist. He is a contributing editor at io9 and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast."  So, this is the fellow that made the post where you copied that map?  OK, I can clearly see where we need to through out everything known in science and believe this guy......what credentials!

Look at the sources you are using here.  I mean...really?

The sources of the model, which provided the ultra-high resolution maps and videos of Earth's gravity field, was developed by scientists of Curtin University and Technische Universität München. 

Gravock
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: allcanadian on August 15, 2015, 08:21:16 PM
@MarkE
Quote
So jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "nah, nah, nah" it is to be.


No, your appeal to emotion is a strawman argument.


What I meant was you are using the fallacy fallacy argument when you said GB's claim was false. You also routinely apply tu quoque to avoid your false assertions ie. the fallacy fallacy.




@All
If we want to understand the misleading logic behind many of the arguments made here I would suggest checking out this website....https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/). It is a very insightful website and I should thank Mark for leading me in this direction. I think it does give tangible insight into our thought process however it also shows how it can be manipulated. Which is the real reason I generally opt out of pointless conversations which lead nowhere. Round and round we go.


On a side note many may recognize this fallacy:
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted   (argumentum ad nauseam).



AC
Title: Re: 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2015, 01:42:20 AM
@MarkE

No, your appeal to emotion is a strawman argument.

What I meant was you are using the fallacy fallacy argument when you said GB's claim was false. You also routinely apply tu quoque to avoid your false assertions ie. the fallacy fallacy.




@All
If we want to understand the misleading logic behind many of the arguments made here I would suggest checking out this website....https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/). It is a very insightful website and I should thank Mark for leading me in this direction. I think it does give tangible insight into our thought process however it also shows how it can be manipulated. Which is the real reason I generally opt out of pointless conversations which lead nowhere. Round and round we go.
It's a good web site.  You should pay attention to what it has to say.
Quote


On a side note many may recognize this fallacy:
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted   (argumentum ad nauseam).



AC