Spyman

They migrated from Venus when they found out about the red berries.

The goats should probably not look too human like if they are supposed to be slaughtered and eaten, unless of course if you want Thor to be an evil cannibalistic monster with a taste for human flesh.

It is not a pile of rocks, it's a large rock with lost of cavities and the image is not recently taken by Curiosity, it was made by Spirit back in January 2006. "Right Panoramic Camera Non-linearized Full frame EDR acquired on Sol 728 of Spirit's mission to Gusev Crater at approximately 14:24:06 Mars local solar time, camera commanded to use Filter 1 (436 nm). NASA/JPL/Cornell" http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/728/2P191002092EFFAMOAP2443R1M1.HTML Here is an excerpt from a press release from around that time: "In recent weeks, as NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit has driven through the basin south of "Husband Hill," it has been traversing mainly sand and dune deposits. This week, though, Spirit has been maneuvering along the edge of an arc-shaped feature called "Lorre Ridge" and has encountered some spectacular examples of basaltic rocks with striking textures. This panoramic camera (Pancam) image shows a group of boulders informally named "FuYi." These basaltic rocks were formed by volcanic processes and may be a primary constituent of Lorre Ridge and other interesting landforms in the basin. Spirit first encountered basalts at its landing site two years ago, on a vast plain covered with solidified lava that appeared to have flowed across Gusev Crater. Later, basaltic rocks became rare as Spirit climbed Husband Hill. The basaltic rocks that Spirit is now seeing are interesting because they exhibit many small holes or vesicles, similar to some kinds of volcanic rocks on Earth. Vesicular rocks form when gas bubbles are trapped in lava flows and the rock solidifies around the bubbles. When the gas escapes, it leaves holes in the rock. The quantity of gas bubbles in rocks on Husband Hill varies considerably; some rocks have none and some, such as several here at FuYi, are downright frothy." http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20060127a.html

I think that correcting an error in the OP is relevant and important, even if it does not concern its main claim. If false facts are left unchallenged then other people who read this thread might believe they are true. I am sorry if this brought the thread off topic, that wasn't my intention.

The country of Sweden is not ruled by the Swedish king and the Nobel prizes are neither awarded nor paid by the king or the government. "Today, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy form of government and a highly developed economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden "According to the 1974 Instrument of Government, the king's duties are solely of a representative and ceremonial nature." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Political_system "The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet is a body at Karolinska Institutet which awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The Nobel Assembly consists of fifty professors in medical subjects at Karolinska Institutet, appointed by the faculty of the Institute, and is a private organisation which is formally not part of Karolinska Institutet." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Assembly_at_Karolinska_Institutet "The Nobel Foundation (Swedish: Nobelstiftelsen) is a private institution founded on 29 June 1900 to manage the finances and administration of the Nobel Prizes. The Foundation is based on the last will of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Foundation

The angle is irrelevant for the reaction force, it will be of equal magnitude as the action force upward. "The third of Newton's laws of motion of classical mechanics states that forces always occur in pairs. This is related to the fact that a force results from the interaction of two objects. Every force ('action') on one object is accompanied by a 'reaction' on another, of equal magnitude but opposite direction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)

The most obvious problem of your invention is that conservation laws says it won't work. It really is that simple, either the conservation laws are wrong or your engine will not work. The conservation laws are well established, to the point of being called laws of nature. The cycle can't repeat before the craft decelerates back to zero. It is not possible to by clever engineering or with electromagnets to break conservation laws, any claims of doing so is of equal level as claims of perpetual motion machines. If the projectile is reusable and brought back to the initial position every cycle then it IS part of the system and if your craft don't exchange momentum with anything outside then it IS a closed system. Your basic problem is certainly not solved. It does not matter at which rate you accelerate the projectile, the exchange of momentum for speeding it up and for slowing it down again will still be equal because with a smaller force you need to provide it for a longer duration to reach the same change in speed. Any technicalities about how the engine accelerate and decelerate the projectile is irrelevant, momentum is still conserved. You could as well claim that you can lift yourself up to the Moon, by repeatedly yanking yourself in the hair fast and releasing the hair slow, resulting in a net postive force upwards.

So let me get this straight, the craft gets accelerated by absorbing the projectile's kinetic energy? Don't you think the craft will recoil during the initial acceleration of the projectile? "In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant. This fact, known as the law of conservation of momentum, is implied by Newton's laws of motion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation The only thing this engine will achieve is rocking the craft back and forth. Further more, what do you mean with the cycle must happen faster than the craft can decelerate? If the cycle is for fast for the craft to decelerate then it is also to fast for it to accelerate.

David Callahan, We have been asked to not discuss the feasibility of your invention in this thread, further more I am not a professional or an expert in this field and also not interested in a private conversation with you hidden from the other members. However I think it is very important to first determine that the general working principle is theoretically possible before spending time and money on technical solutions and practical engineering challenges. If you start a new thread to discuss the working principle, as CaptainPanic advised, then the knowledged and helpful people here can help you determine if it is theoretically feasible or not - and you can put a link to that discussion here to endorse your invention or possibly even use it in an application for funding. You shouldn't have to unveil any technical details or include drawings of your invention in a discussion about a general working principle and can keep that part secret to protect your design until you get a patent filed.

I am sorry but IMHO this looks suspiciously close to a scam asking for funding for a disguised perpetual motion machine. The first indication is when OP admits to not fully understand the limitations his idea and that it may even be proven false but still come here asking for guidance on founding instead of discussing the theoretical working principles behind the idea. Secondly there is no free lunch, while it is fully possible to move a craft by accelerating a projectile on the inside with a railgun or similar device, the thrust will only last as long as the projectile accelerates and to be able to recycle the projectile it needs to be decelerated again and then transported back to the starting point. During the deceleration the craft will recieve a total negative thrust of the same magnitude as it gained during the acceleration, effectively bringing its speed back to zero and the transportation of the projectile back to the starting point will be an opposite of its primary launch bringing the craft back to its starting point. Third, even IF it would be possible to constantly accelerate and move a craft with an application of electromagnets and a reusable magnetically reactive projectile, the energy needed for this would still need to be at least equally large as the energy supplied by a conventional rocket engine with the same thrust and all this energy would have to be stored and carried on the craft. Most of the energy used would still be by the propulsion and be much much more than what the payload and habitation would need. My conclusion is that a claim of high thrust for a long duration from very small amounts of energy is either a major fallacy about design capability and the laws of nature or a clever fraud attempt to gain easy money.

We can currently not see light emitted from a distance of 13.6 billion lightyears, but we can see light that was emitted close to 13 billion years ago and calculate that the object emitting this light has been brought much much further away by the expansion of space, during the time it took for that light to reach us. There are three distances involved in this, the distance from which the light was emitted, the distance light had to travel to reach us and the distance the emitter has when we recieve the light. These distances are not the same and mixing them up with each other can give very confusing conclusions. Think of a rubber band with a unstretched length of ten units and a wheel with a circumference of one of those units. If the wheel traverses the unstretched band it will take ten rotations and the ends of the band are also ten rotations of the wheel apart, both when the wheel start and stop. But if the band expands during the traverse of the wheel then these distances will be very different. If the band is streched from the lenght of 10 rotations to 20 rotations while the wheel make the journey then the wheel starts 10 rotations away but the starting point will be 20 rotations away when the wheel reaches the other end and as measured by the wheel the travel distance was something between 10 and 20 rotations depending on when and how fast the expansion was. According to standard models of cosmic expansion an object with a measured redshift of around 1.4 was emitting the light we receive today around 9 billion years ago from a distance of 5.7 billion lightyears and this object is now thought to be more than 13.7 billion lightyears distant, however it took this light 9 billion years to reach us because space expanded during its travel time. Astronomers can today observe objects with much higher redshift up to and above 8.55 which corresponds to a emitting distance of 3.17 billion lightyears around 13 billion years ago and an estimated object distance now of around 30 billion lightyears.

The author calls himself ZapperZ, so when he signed with his initials he obviously didn't say that he was bored to sleep.

The CMBR we see comes from the edge of Earth's visual sphere, in which the Earth of course are in the center. However the outside of our observable universe is unknown and it is likely that our view is only a tiny bubble in the whole Universe. Like your analogy with the diver, he can't see how big the ocean is and can't possibly know if it is infinite or not. But tired light has been ruled out as an alternative explanation for the increasing redshift with distance. The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

There exists many sites where you can buy storage for images and photos, they even have some limited memory for free and if you upload your pictures to such a place all you need to put in your posts here are their links for them to show up as images. (This of course means that you will have to pay for the extended storage and not SFN.) Top 20 Photo Storage and Sharing Sites

Jupiter has been called the Solar System's vacuum cleaner, because of its immense gravity well and location near the inner Solar System. It receives the most frequent comet impacts of the Solar System's planets. It was thought that the planet served to partially shield the inner system from cometary bombardment. Recent computer simulations suggest that Jupiter does not cause a net decrease in the number of comets that pass through the inner Solar System, as its gravity perturbs their orbits inward in roughly the same numbers that it accretes or ejects them. This topic remains controversial among astronomers, as some believe it draws comets towards Earth from the Kuiper belt while others believe that Jupiter protects Earth from the alleged Oort cloud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Impacts

David Levy The conservation laws of nature says that matter/energy neither can be created nor destroyed, supermassive black holes are not perpetual motion machines that spawn matter from nothing. Also even though supermassive black holes holds a impressive amount of mass/energy they are still very small compared to their housing galaxy. Astronomers have made good observations of the orbital velocities of stars in both other galaxies and the Sun's neighbourhood by measuring their redshift, if stars in general would be drifting outwards, we would not only already know about it but have measured that speed with high precision too. Dark energy and space expansion have nothing to do with structures within galaxies, they represent a feature that is dominant between superclusters of whole groups of galaxies. Quantum physics deals with phenomena at microscopic scales which also are irrelevant on galaxtic scales. Your idea might be simple and easy but it is also terribly wrong.

Kepler's search volume, in the context of the Milky Way galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)#Spacecraft_orbit_and_orientation When we look at other spiral galaxies from an edge on view, we can see that the disc has a very uniform thickness from the central bulge and out to its edge, like with this image of the spiral galaxy NGC 4565: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4565

Actually the road will make a sharp left turn after the bridge in the background and then continue on to the second bridge in the foreground, so the car will eventually meet the waves.

You did not answer if the LED still blinks from pin 3 when the halogen or coil is connected, does it? What lamp did you use to check Step 2? Voltage and effect? The LED, instrument light 1-2 watt, taillight 10-25 watt or other? Is the 1N4004 diode mounted in the correct direction? The side with the grey line on it should be connected between TR1 and the 100 ohm resistor, while the other side without the line should go to the ground. If 1N4004 is turned upside down then the TR2 will be choked to only drain ~350 milliamperes or less through the coil/halogen. It could also be that the power transistors was not meant to drive such a large load in this setting, the 100 ohm resistor determines how much TR2 will open up and it could have a to high value for a 4-5 ampere load, likewise the 5.6k ohm resitor might have a to high value to fully open TR1 and give the 100 ohm resistor the current it needs to open TR2. Don't have more time right now but we can dive deeper into this later if needed.

Did you test Step 3? A light bulb from the headlights of a car should be large enough. Does the LED continue to blink at pin 3 when the coil or a large light bulb is connected? Does the LED blink when connected to the cross point between TR1, 1N4004 and 100 ohm resistor? With and without the coil? (LED in series with the 1k resistor.) Does the LED blink when connected from coil+ to coil-, with and without the coil? (LED in series with the 1k resistor.) Does the spark plug have a common grounding with the ignition coil so the secondary circuit is closed when a spark jumps? (Watch out, high voltage in the range of 10 000 to 40 000 volts from the ignition coil's secondary winding when working.)

Yes, of course, pin 3, typo. (Edited post #15 to fix it.)

I don't think those resistors are the problem, they determine the timing of the pulses and unless a change from 10 Hz to 8 Hz is crucial, then the circuit should work. In the astable mode, the frequency of the pulse stream depends on the values of R1, R2 and C: The high time from each pulse is given by: and the low time from each pulse is given by: where R1 and R2 are the values of the resistors in ohms and C is the value of the capacitor in farads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC#Astable With R1=22k R2=22k and C=2.2µ the Output at pin 3 is High for 0.067 seconds and Low for 0.034 seconds -> frequency = 9.9 Hz. With R1=27k R2=27k and C=2.2µ the Output at pin 3 is High for 0.082 seconds and Low for 0.041 seconds -> frequency = 8.1 Hz. Step 1 is to determine if the output at pin 3 is pulsing or not, this can be done with an oscilloscope or by temporarily unconnect the 5.6k resistor and instead connect a very small 12 VDC light bulb no more than 2 Watts, or a LED in series with a 1k resistor between pin 3 and ground. It should blink around 8 to 10 times each second. If step 1 is OK then the 555 circuit is working properly. Step 2 is to connect a small 12VDC light bulb where the ignition coil is ment to be, it should flash rapidly. If step 2 is OK the power transistors are working properly. Step 3 is to connect a large 12VDC light bulb where the ignition coil is ment to be, it should flash rapidly. (With large I mean that it needs to drain an equal amount of current as the coil does.) If step 3 is OK then the problem is with the coil or spark plug. EDIT: Changed the typo "pin 2" to the correct "pin 3" in Step 1.

http://www.gizmag.com/hoverbike/18813/

Michel, you need to acknowledge that if the astronomer first sees the ET at a planet 1000 lightyears away and then later arrive on Earth the next day, then he knows that the journey took 1000 years + 1 day and not 24 hours, Earth time. (Which is extremely fast but not impossible.)

Well said Iggy, +1.