JoeOh

From what I understand a "field" is a condition in space created by the parent particle. Each particle like the electron gives off "virtual particles" that exist for the most briefest of moments then the virtual particle snaps back to the parent then the VP again extends out from the parent particle in a different direction. Imagine yourself as an electron and you have one arm to push in a random direction. Your hand would effect other electrons by pushing on their hands and keeping their distance. Mind you, you would have to extend your arm and snap it back to yourself at a super incredible rate. Let me know if this sounds right.

What advantages would there be to having a laser that can output the color white? I seen some videos on youtube that have 3 different lasers lined up with mirrors that combine the colors RGB to output white. I do have an idea on how to make a single unit laser that can output the color white. I tried to search on the net if these white laser units already exist. If they do then I haven't come across it yet. Though I'm sure I'm not the only person to come up with the solution I am thinking about.

Well that was based off the us short ton. But yea 1000000 * 540 * $3 = 1.62bill Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI also have another question regarding this. I know that there are plenty of people who have billions in the bank and of course their accounts are growing and they are probably always out for ways of investing their cash for further profits. So would someone in the top 50 Forbes list be interested in starting a moon-base mining operation? I hear that helium 3 is a valuable resource along with the scientific discoveries to be made. Talk about getting in on the ground moon floor for a business opportunity that can only expand that entrepreneur's empire.

John, so that'd be 907 200 grams per ton and 540 tons total times $3 = 1.47Billion dollars. I think thats about right. Hell bill gates has a net worth of 50 billion. That's only about 3% of his wealth just to place a moon house up there. That isn't too bad....if you're a multi-multi billionaire.

I hear that a ticket to the space station will cost a regular civilian about 10 million bucks for a short stay orbiting around the earth. So, if some mega-tycoon had the crazy bucks at their disposal. What would it take in the way of money (which I'm sure will be in the many billions) and equipment to actually take a person to the moon and live their sustainably? I know this is one of the goals for nasa, but they are forced to be on a strict budget. So if the money was available, how much do you all would think would cost to go to and live on the moon as well as have trips back and forth to the earth as well?

Read it all here: http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/30/the-next-generation-of-heat-shield-magnetic/ This heat shield idea does make a lot of sense. When a craft enters the atmosphere, it generates heat from the immense pressure of reentry. When this happens much of that super-heated air becomes plasma and is able to be influenced by magnetic fields. Did I describe this accurately enough? Also, in the diagram on that site, the magnetic coil looks like a simple solenoid. Was this coil shape simplified for the causal reader, or is this the actual coil design? Or is it's because the coil is a superconductor it will provide a diamagnetic field? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNo one has anything to say on this? Come on, this is the closest thing we have now to those fictional shields we've all heard about on those sci-fi shows. Either no one has any interest, or this has been discussed in another thread. I did a search on it and came up empty. Anyone?

Even with a room-temperature SC it would have to be immersed in one HELL of a dense magnetic field area.

Lemme ask you all this then. Lets say we have a 100kg mass traveling at 100km/hour. If we somehow changed the mass of that entire object were reduced to 50kg, would it's traveling speed stay the same or be reduced?

This program is a free 2D visual physics program that allows for a variety of interactions. Here's the download link: http://www.phunland.com/wiki/Download The program can simulate an environment with or without gravity. with or without air. Objects can have varied friction, bounce, and even their own gravitation attraction (if you set the program menu to advanced mode). Also, you can have keyboard control of an object with the arrow keys. It is advisable to have a decent computer with a decent video card to run this program smoothly. I had this program for quite sometime, a buddy told me about it and ever since I've been goofing off with it on occasion. What I did was to replicate my inertia engine idea I displayed in a previous post. Suffice it to say Newton wins out again . I figured he would win, or at least be proven right again (for the 10 millionth+ time I'm sure). But anyhoo, I made my "device" and it does work on a frictioned surface and in earth gravity. But when the friction is turned off and the gravity set to zero, the devices fails to gain momentum and just oscillates in the same spot. In the device, I had a heavy 10kg mass to represent the permanent magnet, and a 1kg mass to represent the copper coil to attract the 10kg mass. Since the program doesn't do magnetism I assigned the arrow keys to cause the 2 objects to come together as if the copper coil mass were attracting the larger mass to itself. Since the copper mass is only 1kg and the other the larger mass is 10kg the copper mass will move faster than the other. In this case I think it's 10 to 1. If I understand physics right, the copper coil moves faster because it has less inertia and moves easier. If I change the acceleration rate of the 10kg mass to more than or less than 1 in this instance then momentum in a vacuum is gained. If it were possible to change an objects mass at will could we "cheat" what actually happens in a vacuum? The only way I know to artificially change the mass on an object is through a particle accelerator. Unless I'm mistaken if particles are allowed to get close to the speed of light (above 80%) the mass and inertia of those particles increases, and if they slow down they lose mass and inertia. This pulsing can be controlled by electricity. Though I'm sure it will take bookoo amounts of power to do it. Maybe I'm wrong, if I am, someone I'm sure will show me the light.

I hear that main power lines only have limited power going through them to avoid the lines sagging too much. Is the sagging of the power lines just due to the heat and/or something else?

Overunity? That's not the claim here like swansont stated. The inventor does claim better efficiency, just not over 100%. He claimed it got 20x better efficiency than a jet engine. Gonna look up to see what that rate is for a jet engine, unless someone already knows it offhand. The dispute is that this device (and my image design) says that if they work in a vacuum as claimed, they'll be raping (violating) newton in his grave. Which is not my intention at all.

Swansont, so this device can only work where there is friction? So using this as a space drive is out of the question? If so, Darn it! Neat idea though- Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere's my version of the EM equivalent of the inertial drive: As you see it's not hard to build each unit. It consists of a clear plastic tube with closed off ends, copper coil, rare earth circular magnet (in light gray), a 250 gram weight (in dark gray), and a spring to provide tension as the EM coil slowly allows the magnet and weight back to initial position. As you see with the signal patterns it's a DC biased smoothed sawtooth (i think). The full voltage is immediately applied and then gradually reduced to zero then the cycle repeats. In this image I have 5 driver units, but one can do the job. As the power signal is applied to the EM coil to rapidly compress the weighted magnet against the tension spring. When this happens the driver unit lurches right. The weight then slowly returns to its starting position as the voltage slowly drops down to zero. Having 5 of these units (or more) can smooth out the process instead of having a constant jerking of the vessel it is moving. Whats great that I almost have the parts to build this thing. All I need is the signal/power supply and a spring to give this a go. I hope you all don't beat me up too much for my purposed design as it only took me an hour or so to come up with.

So basically, this is more like a imbalance drive than inertial one?? If so, can this be done with electromagnets and some heavy permanent magnets? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk, assuming those posted seen the video, how exactly is the boat moving if this device is a fraud?

ok, I finnaly found A link on him, and the name in the original post was spelled wrong. http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Roy-Thornson%20/index.html I could buy most of the parts from home depot to see if this can work on a smaller scale. Too bad I'm flat broke.

Check this video out on YouTube I just came across today. This looks real, but then again, I'm a "casual" physicist. Lets say this is legit, what would be the EM version of this device? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmtWcmm2Wgw&feature=related As you can see in the video, the boat moves in the water with just the device that is enclosed in a box to prevent claims of it moving air. Either the device is working or someone is blowing really hard on the boat to make it move. I tried to look up more information on the inventor, Roy Thornsen, to no avail. I tried to look on on Google or Wikipedia and still got squat. I'm gonna rip this video from YouTube just in case it gets yanked for whatever reason. I would hate to think that the inventor and invention are being "silenced" by whomever. Thoughts?