Does the Anti-Gravity drive as described defy the laws of physics?

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

" a closed system of objects not affected by external forces is constant"

Like I've been saying, it's not a closed system. The bit about gravity is that it's missing. An omission. It's not looking at what I presented correctly.

If your idea depends on gravity then it's not going to work (or work well) in space, far from any sources, where gravity is small.

Gravity is able to transfer momentum from the planet to a craft with a gravity boost, which is something that already exists.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

"and therefore no variation in gravitational force due to the change of "r" or distance between the center of mass of two bodies is being achieved"

I'm asserting apparent weight which incorporates mass separation is what should be used here. What is being used is not weight, but it is one component of weight, i.e. acceleration (edit - sorry, should be g here).  Removing mass from this pretends it's not important irrespective of separation.

Regarding the claim you find dubious - it's not the analysis that's changing per se, it's the presence of the opposing side that reveals a propulsive force, so it's a completely different analysis. You can't accelerate one of the particles without the other. No acceleration, no propulsion.

Gravity is radial, so I don't see how you get propulsion, which suggests a tangential force, from that

But you haven't presented your idea very clearly. Pointing out objections to an idea is an inefficient way of doing this.

50 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

I need to explain - Yes, this is the crux of the matter.  The vis viva describes what happens.  The simulation you could say is a peer reviewed expression of this principle (the software at least) and I provided secondary confirmation with my mathematical proof.

Using two points is a reduction of the types of systems.  It could represent a rigid structure which has a slightly larger width / separation than represented by the balls and a reflective mass distribution, i.e skinny middle, fat ends like a barbell.

The rigid variant is useful for understanding these systems without introducing drift.  By no means am I suggesting a rigid structure is what should be built.  I would note however, eventually around the moon, I think a modified massive scissor lift variant could do a bit of work there.

If you had a big enough barbell, and you could shift the weights like I've described, the effect could be observed.  In the real world, gravity will fight the attitude and tends to bring objects major (mass) axis parallel with the gravitational field. A rigid structure would need heavy duty gyroscopic actions to counter these forces, if it's even possible.

 

This is way too verbose. Too many caveats.

Pick a system, show an analysis. The simplest system you can.

 

50 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

As for your last note, is it a propulsion system? I believe they both are and are antonymous with each other as well as being completely complementary.

AFAIK it is a launch system. To me, propulsion implies it's going to work for travel. And, of course, it has nothing to do with anti-gravity. None of this does.

 

[Cosmic Yoyo]

"If your idea depends on gravity then it's not going to work (or work well) in space, far from any sources, where gravity is small."

Indeed, I have noted that the Anti-Gravity drive works poorly if there is little gravity to resist.  Part of what this research has revealed is that places without much gravity are sort of like the doldrums for sailboats.

"Gravity is radial, so I don't see how you get propulsion, which suggests a tangential force, from that"

Eccentricity pumping? What I'm getting at is not a tangential force.  The diagram shows a quantified propulsive effect.  A sailboat uses sails, but you don't say it doesn't work at all because it can't sail into the wind.

"This is way too verbose. Too many caveats."

I can't help you there. What I've written there needs to be understood, my question can't be answered expertly without understanding most of that and why I've written it that way.  What I'm expressing there is how two point like particles can be representative by reduction of many things.  Bear in mind, this is all new to you, I've been working on this for a few years.

"And, of course, it has nothing to do with anti-gravity. None of this does."

Then describe what is happening in the eccentricity pumping diagram and how the increase in orbital energy is from something other than propulsion and how you don't think this force working in the diagram works in the opposite direction of gravity, i.e. anti-gravity.

Eccentricity Pumping Diagram.pdf

This is probably a good time to think a bit more broadly about what's happening, particularly in relation to energy.

Rather than thinking about generating propulsion - this is the overall effect, but - think about it another way.  A gravitational system (prime + orbiter) is a working system.  I know we don't say gravity does work, but it's doing the equivalent of work and the result would be the same if you took away the prime and did the work yourself.

The work gravity is doing is keeping the orbiter close.  By performing the motions I'm describing, this work machine that is the gravitational system is interrupted.  Imbibed kinetic energy prevents the prime from keeping the same strength grip (grip is lost with altitude and altitude gain can be achieved in an isolated system as I believe I've shown).  As soon as you diminish the grip of gravity on something orbiting, its trajectory will be less deviated by gravity.

The mirrored motion away from the orbital plane stymies the prime.  It wants to chase and grab both, but doing so requires slightly divergent courses.  The prime is played.  It's played because it will take longer to achieve the same outcome, which is retaining the orbiter.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Cosmic Yoyo
typo

[Cosmic Yoyo]

Just wanted to add, I'm really not trying to be rude by implying you don't understand this Swansont, I'm just explaining that this concept is new to you.  In essence, reducing to the two particle simulation is the simplest system I can show you, and imagining a rigid body structure is the best way to understand the concept as a working body in space.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

I made a picture for you Swansont!

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

 

"And, of course, it has nothing to do with anti-gravity. None of this does."

Then describe what is happening in the eccentricity pumping diagram and how the increase in orbital energy is from something other than propulsion and how you don't think this force working in the diagram works in the opposite direction of gravity, i.e. anti-gravity.

The simplest explanation is that you are mistaken.

It’s up to you to explain what your proposal is. Using proper physics terminology.

Quote

Eccentricity Pumping Diagram.pdf 322.11 kB · 0 downloads

That’s not helpful.

Quote

This is probably a good time to think a bit more broadly about what's happening, particularly in relation to energy.

Rather than thinking about generating propulsion - this is the overall effect, but - think about it another way.  A gravitational system (prime + orbiter) is a working system.  I know we don't say gravity does work, but it's doing the equivalent of work and the result would be the same if you took away the prime and did the work yourself.

Of course we say gravity does work. We refer to it as potential energy.

 

Quote

The work gravity is doing is keeping the orbiter close.  By performing the motions I'm describing, this work machine that is the gravitational system is interrupted.  Imbibed kinetic energy prevents the prime from keeping the same strength grip (grip is lost with altitude and altitude gain can be achieved in an isolated system as I believe I've shown).  As soon as you diminish the grip of gravity on something orbiting, its trajectory will be less deviated by gravity.

That’s not physics terminology.

Equations do a much better job of describing what’s going on. Accompanied by a diagram of the forces. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

Just wanted to add, I'm really not trying to be rude by implying you don't understand this Swansont, I'm just explaining that this concept is new to you.  In essence, reducing to the two particle simulation is the simplest system I can show you, and imagining a rigid body structure is the best way to understand the concept as a working body in space.

You haven’t “shown” anything, as far as I’m concerned. You haven’t provided the information that is useful for a physics analysis. Where are the equations?

You haven’t followed through on the analysis I asked you to provide - you stopped partway through - and haven’t made a cogent connection between your various scenarios.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

"Equations do a much better job of describing what’s going on. Accompanied by a diagram of the forces. "

 

Thats what the mathematical solution I presented you does. That's what the vis viva formula does. That's what I've done to your logo.

 

"The simplest explanation is that you are mistaken.

It’s up to you to explain what your proposal is. Using proper physics terminology."

 

That's like pulling rank. I'm not going to argue with you about nomenclature. The answer is here, I've done my best with the time I have to explain it.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

"Equations do a much better job of describing what’s going on. Accompanied by a diagram of the forces. "

 

Thats what the mathematical solution I presented you does. That's what the vis viva formula does. That's what I've done to your logo.

What solution? The only equations I’ve seen were in relation to a huge scale.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

Thats what the mathematical solution I presented you does. That's what the vis viva formula does. 

Why haven’t you posted the formula, and analysis based on it?

2 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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 1.05 MB · 0 downloads

The rules require you post your work. “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links” (rule 2.7)

[Cosmic Yoyo]

Please read the pdf.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

Please read the pdf.

please follow the rules

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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

In principle, yes, (it makes it easier to quote) but in looking at the document it’s not very useful. You dive into details without explaining what you are doing or hope to achieve.

You have two conflicting scenarios (different attack velocities), and you introduce new terms without explanation, such as “bounce” What is allegedly bouncing? You mention a bounce force, but there’s no discussion of forces anywhere else. You mention a drive particle without explaining what it is. It’s unclear what you are trying to do.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Cosmic Yoyo
to further specify

[joigus]

Your OP is too long-worded, flooded with rhetoric and purely stylistic literary figures, and has several important misnomers/misconceptions, or allegedly novel concepts without explanation in it, which makes it kind of difficult to address as a scientific paper. That doesn't mean you're necessarily off your rocker.

By skimming through your PDFs, I come to the conclusion that what you're trying to do there is to concoct a transfer orbit based on exploiting energy exchanges from the spinning of the satellite to the orbital degrees of freedom; or more in general, from the internal energy of the system to the CoM gravitational energy.

You mention a "compression force" that sounds remarkably like a tidal force.* It's not impossible to extract elastic energy, energy from friction, or other kinds of internal energies and transfer it to the orbital DOF. It is known that tidal forces are throwing off the Moon from the Earth's attraction the order of 10 cm per year. Also the Earth is spinning more and more slowly due to these exchanges.

Given that the Earth-Moon system requires masses of astronomical order only to induce a minute kinematic change that needs laser telemetry to detect, my submission is that, even if your idea were based on a correct intuition --it is impossible to know as it stands, at least for me--, the orders of magnitude would be ridiculously unacceptable.

Does any of this give you pause?

You would need an end-of-the-notepad, rather than a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

And I suggest to drop the anti-gravity there. You haven't mentioned anything that remotely suggests anti-gravity.

* Using standard names is important. People get really annoyed if they have to spend, say an hour or two, going through a preprint, only to discover that this brand new thing is good-old-reliable tidal force. Summoning Iron Man and co does not make it any better, although I assume you're just trying to be helpful.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Cosmic Yoyo
Trying to make sure questions are answered

[joigus]

18 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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.

What do you mean in friendlier terms?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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.

None of that is necessary for explanation. Physicists trust the numbers. Drawing do not need be to scale. Illustrative is fine.

 

2 hours ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

The bounce is what one would use to keep a space elevator elevated, although simple satellite boosting is possible this way.

This doesn’t explain what it actually is.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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.

Making up new terminology is not helpful. Is there any reason to get away from just identifying the forces involved? There’s only gravity, right? A tidal force is just a different value of that force in two locations. If you have compression and tensile forces that requires a structure, and you need to give details of that structure 

 

 

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

If we try to use tidal forces to describe both, I think that's much worse.

Imagine that...

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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]

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

Swansont

 

The bounce is a way to transfer the 'generated' momentum. Nothing complicated.

You are making it complicated. You did not explain what was going on. What momentum is being “generated”? What is the source and destination of the momentum?

Is this an interaction between two satellites, or a satellite and a planet?

From what I’ve read, you start with a circular orbit and change it to elliptical, but without explaining how (you just add in a second velocity vector)

Then you start calculating angles without explanation, and begin talking about different particles without explanation. It’s not posted in the thread, so quoting is impossible.

Momentum transfer requires a force, but you don’t do any force analysis 

 

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

 

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.

But there’s no structure. You just have particles. The only way for them to interact is gravitationally, and that will be negligible between the objects. The only interaction of merit is the gravitational force exerted by the planet. You’ve not justified anything else.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

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.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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.

That’s not a tension between them. That behavior is not the result of experiencing a different force, or acceleration. If the masses are equal, they are experiencing the same exact force. This result is a fairly straightforward result of kinematics.

 

 

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

For the bounce, what I have calculated is velocity.  To get the force, then just add a value for mass.

Mass and velocity does nit give you a force.

And you still have not explained what this alleged bounce is.

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

 The separation movement requires energy, the more, the better.

Where does this energy come from?

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

 That's where the second velocity vector takes effect.  

That makes no sense from a physics perspective 

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

All that needs to be done is send the two sides of the device on their way.  

You don’t have a “device”. You seem to have two particles in orbit. I think, because your description is far from clear.

You should really gave started with an abstract. And you should define all your terms. 

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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.

You don’t really “apply” velocities. You can impart a velocity by exerting a force.

 

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

 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.

Contrary motion? of what?

what is an ”internally activated” orbit? 

Again you mention a bounce without having explained what that means. 

1 hour ago, Cosmic Yoyo said:

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.

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.

[Cosmic Yoyo]

"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.