Cosmic Yoyo

12 ≠ 11? You sure bout that?

1. If you accelerate *to* 2. They are equivalent numerically. 3. This is a lay translation, trying to communicate the concept. It isn't fictitious. 4. Arbitrary duration that's defined by the units, which for time is seconds. If you're talking about f = mv, it's that force for one second and at any time within that second, the instantaneous force equals the force over the duration of one second. Force isn't time based itself, but time is used to define it as well as other units.

f = mv is what f = ma resolves to in one second. If you accelerate to 9.8 ms-1 in one second, you will be travelling at a velocity of 9.8 ms-1. Momentum and force are equivalents - if an object has a certain amount of momentum, it will require an equivalent amount of force to bring it to a stop. They don't have to have the same units to do this. By saying mv, you're saying full acceleration to the value of the unit time, which is just another way of saying the velocity. How long the force transfer takes is irrelevant here except for how the units relate to each other. When you start to talk about specifying the duration, you start to talk about impulse.

Oh dear. Swansont made the exact same mistake I did and now you're making it too Phi!

Ghideon Look at the page on momentum. You'll see on the right F = d/dt(mv). It's per unit time. So presumes the acceleration is one in one second, or whatever unit of time you're using for the acceleration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum I can't describe two bodies pushing each other apart much more simply than that, but I've used Ironman and his double as the device because I don't need to explain how they do things. I also used the example of a massive barbell form with sliding weights. If you can think of simpler language, I'm open to suggestions. However, right now, Ironman and his double can push each other apart, are tethered, can lock their tether and can push against other objects. I really don't know how I can make it any simpler without having to have extraneous explanations to the point of bringing out finger puppets. It really is almost on that level. I can't help but think this is an effort to draw me into a rabbit hole. If people can answer my question in the negative - fine, answer it according to the rules of this site, i.e. bring evidence. If people can't answer, or want to hedge their bets, "I can't see why not" is a perfectly reasonable response. Anything else from now is just nit picking.

1. I don't understand why you're so annoyed at me describing things in a way that makes sense to me. I didn't say anything false. 2. f = mv which is the same as f = ma if complete velocity transfer is made, say if one goes from a stop to full speed. 3. I didn't think it was a requirement on this site to label things a particular way. I am sorry if I offend. I really thought it would be OK to provide physical context of a kick as a force. 4,5. Insipid examples are used because some people need these examples to follow a narrative. It's functional. Is it breaking the rules here? 6. If I said 'velocity that arises from applied force', you'd understand me. I say 'applied velocity' to truncate that. I really can't understand why you find this so irritating. How does which satellite acquire this velocity? See I can ask you are you referring to the Red Dwarf, or are you referring to Ironman and his double or just Ironman by himself. See how easy that is to distinguish elements? 7. The bounce is simply a force applied to another object. They key thing about a bounce if you like is that it's due to an ideally elastic collision. The term contrary motion I use is derived from the playing of a musical scale in opposing directions. It's basically a retelling of "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction". The bounce is simply a way to transfer momentum. Edit - my presence here isn't to sell my idea, I'm asking the question does it work.

"If the masses are equal, they are experiencing the same exact force. This result is a fairly straightforward result of kinematics." No, gravity provides a different amount of force to objects at different altitudes. "Mass and velocity does nit give you a force. And you still have not explained what this alleged bounce is." Mass and change in velocity do. In my original post, I refer to the bounce force as planting a mawashi geri. "Where does this energy come from?" In the example, Iron man and his double's legs. "That makes no sense from a physics perspective " I was responding to your exact words. -"(you just add in a second velocity vector)" "You don’t have a “device”. You seem to have two particles in orbit. I think, because your description is far from clear." Ironman tethered to his mech buddy is not a device? "You don’t really “apply” velocities. You can impart a velocity by exerting a force." While obviously not technically correct, it's good to be able to distinguish initial velocity, applied velocity and the resultant total of the two. I'd rather you complain about that than having too much verbosity that will make people's eyes glaze over. "Contrary motion? of what? what is an ”internally activated” orbit? Again you mention a bounce without having explained what that means. " The bounce makes contrary motion if done right. Contrary motion means following the same shaped trajectory out of the manoeuvre that created the bounce or other interaction. When Ironman and his double kicked the Red Dwarf, their trajectories toward and away are mirrored over their shared orbital plane through a line running from the Red Dwarf to the centre of the Earth. They performed the bounce and made Red Dwarf elevate. In the mathematical solution, you can see it, it's the tear drop shape. At the tip of the tear drop, there's an abrupt change in velocity due to the bounce. Note the overall symmetry. The orbit is internally activated because that's the idea, internally generated propulsion. It's an orbit distinct from the original. "You haven’t described objects pushing each other apart. You have two objects in orbits. They are not, so far as I can tell, interacting with each other, hence there can be no push." Ironman and his mech buddy tethered together.

Swansont, let me do your second first. I'm talking about resultant forces from the planet. Two water molecules dropping from a tap will accelerate away from each other if they came out at different times. This is the tension I'm describing and it only exists because of the planet. For the bounce, what I have calculated is velocity. To get the force, then just add a value for mass. The separation movement requires energy, the more, the better. That's where the second velocity vector takes effect. All that needs to be done is send the two sides of the device on their way. There is nothing preventing this velocity being applied, all that needs to happen is for the two sides to travel away from each other away from the original orbital plane. Gravity will bring them back together twice per orbit, at apogee and back at perigee. Using contrary motion, it's possible to interrupt this internally activated orbit, apply the bounce to a target, then the resultant force of this bounce interaction if performed precisely will send the device back into its original orbit. It's good to have left mass out of these calculations up to this point, standard practice mostly still applies. To peel this whole idea away to a bare bones statement, it can be said that one way to defy gravity is to make two objects push each other apart in opposite directions that both have upward components.

Joigus I just mean terms you're more accustomed to. I know there's mistakes in the first post, I just had a bit of trouble finding anyone to check my work (I mean anyone). My DW did her best, it could have been worse! However, she has absolutely no capacity to check the details we're discussing. Your'e getting that raw.

Swansont The bounce is a way to transfer the 'generated' momentum. Nothing complicated. Honestly, I don't think tidal forces really hit home. Tension and compression are really good terms for inferring a relationship between two particles if there was a structure. If it's tensile, the particles want to accelerate away from each other. If its compression, they want to accelerate towards each other. If we try to use tidal forces to describe both, I think that's much worse.

Joigus Not sure if realised, but Swansont was on to something when he mentioned the inability to generate tangential propulsion. This drive has great difficulty with this. It's good at pushing in the direction opposite to the gravitational field. If you want to wait for someone to explain it in friendlier terms, no worries. The NASA material refers to tidal forces. I refer to it as gravitational tension. This is distinct from gravitational compression which is running orthogonal to the tensile force, or tidal force if that's what you want to call it. The moon heading off by itself - my understanding is that its the attraction to everything else that's causing this, not tidal forces per se. The tidal forces they refer to in the NASA material is the variation of gravitational effect due to different trajectories and locations. This isn't my expertise, but I hope that addresses what you brought up.

I'm here for those questions. I've generated two scenarios, one graphic and one mathematical. I calculate both, but the mathematical formulas show interactions a bit to small to easily see what's happening. That's why I added the graphic example. If you look closely, you can see what's going on behind the Earth and you can see the shifts in A by noting the points I've emphasised. The graphic example is obviously massive and I'm not proposing making anything that big - I made it to communicate a sense of proportion with respect to the physics being described. It's all to scale, the 3D views are axonometric, so translate it all by inverse of root two. Doing so allows you to measure with a ruler. The diagrams are solid, generated purely from the vis viva, all I'm doing is dumping in velocity and noting what happens to A (and by definition what happens to B) and drawing it out. The bounce is what one would use to keep a space elevator elevated, although simple satellite boosting is possible this way. If you had a whole bunch of Anti Gravity drives following each other around in orbit, they could provide a regular upwards bounce force, allowing a space elevator platform to operate at maybe 150 Km (geocentric) above the ground. I know this is far fetched and there's some obvious impracticalities, but the bounce is real and quantifiable. I'm happy to show you the design I am proposing and its sequence.

What am I doing wrong? Do you want me to post the pages individually?

Please read the pdf.

I attached it to the first post. This is what I've used to generate the eccentricity pumping diagram I showed you. Anti_Gravity_Mathematical_Solution.pdf