insane_alien

perhaps if you post it here instead of making us read an image of face book that approximates a wall of text to the point of be ing unreadable.

not quite, but even if it was made o neutronium it would fly apart before you goit it up to to a speed where gravitomagnetism would rival normal gravity.

it makes it accepted as right until proven otherwise. well, if you have a rapidly rotating ring of matter you can create a gravitational dipole but really the dimensions, mass and velocity would need to be astronomical and it could be used to repel normal matter as well. the effect tends to be drastically overpowered by standard gravitational effects though.

no, not really. if gravitomagnetic effects are true(or untrue) gravity is still mass dependant. so, two positive mass particles/objects will attract each other gravitationally and only a negative mass particle/object will repel. you should remember that the null hypothesis here is that antimatter is gravitationally attracted to matter and not the other way around as you imply.

bye then.

it has to overcome friction in the engine and keep moving fast enough to remain operational.

yes, if you go into a lower gear where the revs are higher of course. but all other things being equal(same gear, same weight etc) driving slower is more fuel efficient although there is a tipping point as the slower the engine goes the less efficiently it puts power to the wheels so you have to balance minimising drage and keeping the motor running efficiently.

M2 will be whatever the mass of your apparatus weighs. i do not know how massive it will be so i cannot put a meaningful number in there. perhaps a preliminary estimate of 50000 tonnes should be used if we are to assume that the machine is free floating and capable of having the power to accelerate this to decent speeds. if its attached to a planet/moon/asteroid then thats what you'd use. this isn't complicated and we've explained it to you before. no, none will be truely isolated, but as long as you factor in all the influences the laws of physics hold. in your case, all we really need to consider is the interaction of the projectile and the launcher(and perhaps whatever it is attached to). everything else should be negligble. i think you are trying to make this more complicated than it actually is.

the video shows conservation of energy. energy and momentum are two very different things(although they are both conserved) the difference being, in a collision like scenario(like the one you are presenting) energy can be lost to heat and other things while momentum remains strictly in the motion of the objects. how it is distributed is determined by the equation swansont posted. to say it is the wrong equation to use is to deny the conservation of momentum.

so you're saying momentum is not conserved? because thats what swansont is saying. and conservation of momentum is one of the most tested things in physics because momentum being conserved is one of the major assumptions of nearly every single physics theory.

swansont has been employed for years and will have collborated with many physicists over the course of his career. you can't fake it at his level. besides, this is very very basic high school level stuff. this also shows he is correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision its a basic conservation of momentum equation. this is very much the most appropriate equation to use.

if he did not know this physics (and much much more beyond it) then he wouldn't be employed. his job as a physicist does tend to be highly dependant on him having physics knowledge. my job also requires a good grasp of physics (i'm a chemical engineer) especially when things are going round corners such as material in pipes. i can confirm he is correct and using the appropriate equation. edit: from your most recent post you said that none of the masses change. this is true, swansont never claimed this at all. don't claim people said stuff they didn't, it only makes you look stupid.

cruising slower WILL increase your mileage as the engine has to do less work against drag which means it requires less force to maintain a constant speed.

it may be the only equation he gave, but its the only equation he needed to give to prove his point. seriously, you're making some basic mistakes about newtonian physics. swansont knows what he is talking about when it comes to physics.

you're going to have to post more than that, what application?

gas turbines are nowhere near 90% efficient. they are also far more expensive than reciprocating engines and take longer to start up.

it should really be in the bin to be honest. if i had any power i'd move it myself but the staff have determined not to let me touch the banhammer.

yes, that is one of the reasons why pressure is often used as an analogue of voltage( for example, the hydraulic analogy of electricity).

pressure doesn't have a direction BUT a pressure gradient DOES have a direction.

drag is also used to mean friction.

its a bunch of rubbish he was banned for spamming the boards with before and likely he will again. come on crownedconquern, show us some proof.

sort of. if you are cruising at a set speed then ALL of the engines power is going into overcoming drag from various sources.

well, they actually KNEW it was sulphuric acid before they sent the probes. you can tell a lot about somethings composition by the light it reflects.

less fuel burnt per distance rather than time. at high speeds most of the engines power is used overcoming drag. at 70mph it may take 40 horsepower to maintain speed but at 50mph it may only take 30 horse power so you don't need to supply anywhere near the amount of fuel to the engine.

yes, but the cool thing about it is that it uses every digit from 1 to 9. i realise why it works, just think its cool how it uses all the digits.