Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

[MasterOgon]

When object A and object B receive an impulse P in opposite directions, a reactive motion will occur, because they are repelled from each other.
If the impulse P of object A is transmitted to object B, the movement will stop. In this case, the AB system always remains at rest relative to the initial position. But position B regarding A has changed. This is enough, because object B may already be in another galaxy, while remaining part of the AB system.

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

When object A and object B receive an impulse P in opposite directions, a reactive motion will occur, because they are repelled from each other.
If the impulse P of object A is transmitted to object B, the movement will stop. In this case, the AB system always remains at rest relative to the initial position. But position B regarding A has changed. This is enough, because object B may already be in another galaxy, while remaining part of the AB system.

The above is an agreement to my previous post, right?

The fact that A and B may be separated by an arbitrary distance after some time is of course true, but not important to the conservation of momentum in this discussion

[MasterOgon]

I agree. I drew attention to this fact, because it indicates that object B was already set in motion without violating the law of conservation of energy. As far as I understand, that was exactly what had to be proved.

 

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

I agree

Ok! Next step: we introduce the saucer again, as object B. Saucer is stationary in the air at this time. How this is accomplished is not important yet, in this case we neglect the effect of gravity. Let the initial push as discussed in previous post (where object “B” pushed some air “A”) be the first upstroke of the saucer. Internal construction of saucer is not important, we only assume that it can push some air up, at least once. The saucer push some amount of air "A" up with momentum P and hence the saucer has a momentum P down. The best possible theoretical outcome of this upstroke is if the saucer B at some time later somehow is affected* by the air so that momentum P is transferred to the saucer. This would result in a zero momentum down for the saucer, making it stationary again. The saucer is at this time at a slightly lower position than initially. Do you agree?

The saucer has not yet performed a downstroke.

*) Again, how the interaction is possible or the physical phenomenon(s) involved is not important now, it could be collisions, draft, drag, turbulence, friction or other. Only important thing is that the interaction follows the laws of physics (conservation of momentum) and that no external forces are involved. Any losses is also neglected at this time. B (saucer) is not allowed to perform any additional actions that may affect momentum or movements.

[MasterOgon]

Yes

[Ghideon]

6 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Yes

In the previous steps we have shown that according to conservation of momentum it is not possible for an object to ascend if the ascent is supposed to be the result from having the object perform an an initial ascending move, pusing air upwards. At best it is a zero-sum game where the initial upwards move of the object results in zero momentum. Hence, each upstroke by the saucer have at best, under theoretically idealised circumstances, a zero effect on the saucers capability to lift. Never ever can the upstrokes help lifting the saucer since even if the theoretically perfect situation the saucer will be located at a lower position relative to the starting position of the upstroke.

This invalidates any claims that the saucer could use the inertia of the upwards moving air to generate lift. Note that it is a generally applicable result; frequency, type of engine, amplitude etc have no impact. The upstroke can't have a positive effect on the saucers ability to hover or lift; only a negative or zero effect. All previous and future descriptions and analogies about any positive effect of the saucers upstroke is not compatible with the conservation of momentum. Any claim based on the upstroke having the possibility to help generating lift is therefore refuted. No further analysis or design of the upstroke is required. Do you agree?

Conclusion: The saucer and the proposed propulsion ideas are unfortunately not compatible with laws of physics, in this case conservation of momentum.

 

[MasterOgon]

The process that occurs when the saucer pushes the air can have a different description. It depends on the speed of the impulse. But its essence remains the same. Let the movement be quick. So it will be easier to describe it using other sources.

A saucer B transmits a pulse A to air A and receives air resistance P. A part of the energy P causes the saucer to be pushed back. But the main part of the PA leads to air compression. Knowing the properties of air, we can assume that the impulse of the PA will lead to the formation of a wave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave ) that will propagate in the direction of the impulse P, upwards. The wave will move by inertia, carrying with it the energy of the pulse P. At the same time, the mass of air A and the mass of saucer B will remain practically in place, with the exception of a small repulsion. Since the wave is an area of high and low pressure, the air will tend to equalize the pressure. If we consider a wave that spreads evenly in a circle, then the wind will begin to restore balance only when the wave loses its strength. But since the wave propagates only in one direction, the restoration of equilibrium will begin immediately after the formation of a wave.

If the wave was strong enough, then the wind will follow it not weak. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave )

Air resistance will gradually take energy P from the wave, turning it into wind, seeking to fill the area of low pressure behind the wave. The initial wave P is greater than the wind P. Therefore, the wind will follow the wave, trying to catch up with the area of low pressure. This will occur as long as the P wave has completely transformed into the P wind, and it will equalize the pressure difference.
It is worth noting that the momentum of the PB has not gone away. He created a corresponding oscillation in object B. But if object B is strong enough, they will quickly go out.
As a result, we get the wind PA and the sound of the PB, which together will create the effect of a flying saucer.

This is because the wave carries energy, but not the mass of air. Air A remains in place and returns momentum to the saucer.

In this case, the direction of the PA does not change

[Ghideon]

14 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

The process that occurs when the saucer pushes the air can have a different description. 

Your description violates conservation of momentum. 

[MasterOgon]

I disagree. P turned completely into heat. But the PB impulse made it much earlier than the PA. This difference became the movement of B.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

I disagree. P turned completely into heat.

Please go back to the points where we agreed earlier. Read carefully and state what modifications you want regarding conservation of momentum.

 

[MasterOgon]

The fact that A and B are pushing in opposite directions has left a small part of the energy. This movement can be neglected. The air and saucer remained practically where they were.

The bulk of the energy turned into waves, which continued to move in their respective directions. Waves transfer energy but do not transfer mass.
This means that the energy is still preserved in A and B. And as before A and B can transfer it to each other.

But B are in the low pressure area that follows the wave. The PB wave will quickly dissipate inside B and no transmitted by A at this time. Because in near B there is almost no A. PA will dissipate for a long time. After some time, the PA will return to B as the wind. PB at this time will be warm

Edited December 16, 2018 by MasterOgon

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

The fact that A and B are pushing in opposite directions has left a small part of the energy. This movement can be neglected. The air and saucer remained practically where they were.

Your description violates conservation of momentum. Also please add citations to the statements you earlier agreed about that you do not agree about anymore.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Ghideon
grammar

[MasterOgon]

You can tell how it violates the law of conservation of energy. And which statements do you consider questionable?

 

[Ghideon]

11 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

conservation of energy

I have not discussed conservation of energy. I have used conservation of momentum to adress issues with the saucer.

[MasterOgon]

OK. The impulse is evenly distributed between the atoms of the system. They came in a chaotic motion and got warm. Movement B was the result of a certain sequence of impulse transmission.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

They came in a chaotic motion and got warm. Movement B was the result of a certain sequence of impulse transmission.

It is not necessary to add an analysis of heat losses since it makes the situation more complicated. But by doing so the upstroke has a larger negative impact on the possibility to ascend, confirming my objections to the design. 

 

[MasterOgon]

The impulse gave almost no rebounding because the air is soft. Try to hit the air with an umbrella.
I do not think that you can push off. This is only possible while you are pushing.

[Ghideon]

Please stay on topic, only adress the conservation of momentum issue. I'm beginning to loose track of which of my comments you support and which ones you disagree upon. You seem do have changed your mind regarding earlier agreements which is fine. But please add citations, especially when commenting on the statements you earlier agreed about that you do not agree about anymore. I have to know which part(s) of mainstream physics you want to refute to be able to respond properly.

 

3 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

The impulse gave almost no rebounding because the air is soft. Try to hit the air with an umbrella.
I do not think that you can push off. This is only possible while you are pushing.

Makes no difference, the upstroke still can't have positive contribution to the ability to ascend. And it contradicts your earlier post:

On 2018-11-27 at 7:29 PM, MasterOgon said:

The wing makes a fast ascending impulse, as a result of which a shock wave is formed above it, and the flying saucer begins to be drawn into the region of reduced pressure formed behind it. An annular vortex is formed under the wing, which follows it by inertia. Then the wing begins to make a reverse movement downward at low speed, and the flying saucer pushes off from the whirlwind, which catches up with it, carrying it upwards.

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

OK, that's all we can allow. MasterOgon, in a discussion, especially a science discussion, it's very important to stay on topic, bring any new knowledge you learn with you the whole way through, and let evidence persuade you rather than your emotional desire to be right. You can't keep building with broken pieces.

Thanks to Ghideon for providing lots of insight and for filling knowledge gaps nicely. You're a patient person and it's appreciated.

Sorry, MasterOgon, but you had five pages to explain your idea. Please don't open any more threads on this unless you reread this one many times, and discover new evidence to support your ideas.