Does matter and/or energy

[ninus maximus]

Then how is it possible that your scenario is correct, in which the mass goes from 40 m/s to -40 m/s?

 

 

 

That the mass changes direction is not something that should be in question here, since you've already agreed that it happens.

 

The point is that the speed isn't 40 m/s after it turns around, since some momentum has to be transferred to the 1000 kg mass. And that's why your scenario is impossible.

 

so your saying that the equation you used shows that the mass reduces in velocity?

to -32 m/s vs my -40 m/s

 

given that how would that velocity reduction of the mass show that the scenario is impossible?

 

the mass can easily float to the other turn.

 

there it will push the spaceship in the (+) direction again as it

passes through the 2nd turn.

then the mass will have a velocity of < +32 m/s as it enters the accelerator again.

 

I used your equation again and I get +26 m/s through the 2nd turn.

 

so the mass has another velocity reduction from -32 m/s to +26 m/s.

 

I can see that it is a correct scenario even if the mass does slow slightly through the

2 turns , Im not sure why you say the scenario is impossible however.

 

I would like to point out that these days friction can be almost completely negligible

if using a almost frictionless surface such as an air table like the one used at MIT.

 

of course there are more cost effective methods to reduce friction , and in my original example

I had noted that I had not included resistance.

Edited July 8, 2010 by ninus maximus

[swansont]

Your propulsion is contingent upon the masses remaining at the same speed. They don't. The reduction in speed is just the right amount so that the center-of-mass never moves, and the object remains at rest (translationally, at least. The larger mass will begin to rotate)

[ninus maximus]

Your propulsion is contingent upon the masses remaining at the same speed. They don't. The reduction in speed is just the right amount so that the center-of-mass never moves, and the object remains at rest (translationally, at least. The larger mass will begin to rotate)

 

it probably would rotate , but it would have linear motion as the mass accelerates down the accelerator.

it would then cause the rear of the spaceship to move slightly to the right if you were observing it from the rear of the spaceship , then it would stop the spaceship , then it would slightly move the rear of the spaceship to the left.

 

but if opposing sets of accelerators and masses are used then it would not move the spaceship lateraly or rotate , it would have linear motion then it would stop.

 

then it would just sit there as the masses free float.

then as the masses pass through the second turn the spaceship would again

move in the (+) direction.

 

so you cant just say something will not work and expect people to believe you , just as you cant just say something will work and expect people to believe you.

 

but showing how something might or might not work will allow people to make

there own decissions.

[Bignose]

so you cant just say something will not work and expect people to believe you , just as you cant just say something will work and expect people to believe you.

 

OK, I'll bite. You can't just say that your idea will work and epect me to believe you.

 

Show how you intend to break the laws of physics as we understand them today, and show why the billions of validations of those laws have been wrong to date.

 

Thanks.

[ninus maximus]

OK, I'll bite. You can't just say that your idea will work and epect me to believe you.

 

Show how you intend to break the laws of physics as we understand them today, and show why the billions of validations of those laws have been wrong to date.

 

Thanks.

 

I already have , even swansont says it will move , even if it only went

around in a circle, its reactionless propulsion because theres no friction in space.

 

I dont think that any TRUE laws of physics are broken however.

newton never said what is said today.

 

other people added to what newton said.

because they thought their interpretation of what he said was correct.

 

and we have shown here that this can happen in space , and engineers

knowing this can happen as a result of mass being forced away from a spaceship both internally and externally can avoid tragic accidents.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ninus maximus

[swansont]

I said it would rotate. A reactionless drive refers to translation, and the device you describe will not translate. The center of mass will not move.

[Spyman]

given that how would that velocity reduction of the mass show that the scenario is impossible?

"the two forces that are presented to the turnarounds by the 100 kg mass will cancel each other out and the force that was used to accelerate the 100 kg mass will propel the spacecraft."

a theory concerning space propulsion

 

But if you accept the velocity reduction provided then you should realize that the two U-turns will no longer balance out.

[Bignose]

I already have , even swansont says it will move , even if it only went

around in a circle, its reactionless propulsion because theres no friction in space.

 

I dont think that any TRUE laws of physics are broken however.

newton never said what is said today.

 

other people added to what newton said.

because they thought their interpretation of what he said was correct.

 

and we have shown here that this can happen in space , and engineers

knowing this can happen as a result of mass being forced away from a spaceship both internally and externally can avoid tragic accidents.

 

No, address swansont's point about translation. As in the other thread, I agree that it will not translate by the laws of physics we know today.

 

I also suggested that your build a model of your device and take it out on a boat on a calm body of water. If your idea works as you say it will, it should also be able to propel a boat across water.

 

Again, going back to YOUR point about not just taking someone's word for it, why don't you go out and do it? Show us all wrong. Until that time, however, again citing the laws of physics that have been validated billions of times is all the justification that us skeptics need.

[swansont]

I also suggested that your build a model of your device and take it out on a boat on a calm body of water. If your idea works as you say it will, it should also be able to propel a boat across water.

 

 

Actually, you could probably devise a scenario where you could do this, owing to friction.

[Bignose]

Actually, you could probably devise a scenario where you could do this, owing to friction.

 

If you get the boat rocking in just the right manner, perhaps. But, I think that nm is envisioning this thing being able to zip along at whatever speed he wants. And, since testing in space isn't easy, testing on water is a significantly cheaper and viable alternative. The rail with the slug of mass is all supposed to be internal, there isn't supposed to be any interaction with the water. If he built this thing, and the boat was rocking, it would be easy to see on a video that rocking would invalidate the results.

 

If he had a calm body of water and a calm boat (no rocking allowed), and just his slug of mass spinning around, AND the boat was moving solely because of the spinning mass (no wind, or current, etc.), then he's got something.

 

You and I both know that it won't work the way he wants it to work. However, I am tired of him coming here and writing things like "so you cant just say something will not work and expect people to believe you , just as you cant just say something will work and expect people to believe you. "

 

It is obvious words aren't going to change his mind, so I was trying to get him to go out and actually build what he wants to build and try it out for himself. Hopefully he will be able to convince himself when it fails that the idea isn't going to work and maybe he will then actually study what the laws of physics do and don't say. As I wrote, it is obvious that the forum members give it their best shot; there really isn't any more point to arguing is there?

 

So, nm, go and do this for yourself. Be fair about it -- no cheating in any of various ways -- and report back. If you being back objective, indisputable, iron-clad evidence, then we'll all admit we were wrong and that our understanding of physical law needs to be amended. Please don't expect me to hold my breath, however.

[swansont]

You and I both know that it won't work the way he wants it to work. However, I am tired of him coming here and writing things like "so you cant just say something will not work and expect people to believe you , just as you cant just say something will work and expect people to believe you. "

 

I have no disagreement with this.

 

——

To summarize

 

1. It won't work. Ample justification has been given for that.

 

2. The burden of proof that it would work lies on the person making the claim. Thus far rigorous support has been conspicuous in its absence.

[ninus maximus]

Actually, you could probably devise a scenario where you could do this, owing to friction.

 

yep , I was thinking of something that would fit in the bathtub.

 

of course a boat would be next I suppose.

 

I was thinking about just mounting a pipe on a wooden board.

 

then mounting a rail gun inside the pipe , let the mass move up in a 180 electrical conduit fitting then float through the air into another 180 electrical conduit , then back into the rail gun.

 

I suppose I would need to build the rail gun first , then the 1st turn.

then find out where the other 180 electrical conduit would need to be placed

by firring a mass through the 1st 180.

 

I should be able to just give the rail gun and horizontal pipe a little angle to use 2 identical 180's

as the mass will want to drop between 180's .

 

thats pretty much the same thing.

 

put it in the tub and fire up the rail gun.

 

if the concept is viable as Im sure it is , then it would also work in space.

Edited July 10, 2010 by ninus maximus

[AlphaSheeppig]

The problem is the momentum in the turnaround (if you assume the velocity stays the same) goes from +p to -p which is a total of p - (-p) = 2p, which needs to be given to the mass by some device (eg. a semi circular wall...) and that momentum is also transferred to the vehicle which cancels out all the momentum you gain from accelerating the mass and preparing it for the acceleration.

 

The momentum of the vehicle will go between p and -p and the vehicle will move backwards and forward on the spot (and possible rotate, depending on how the turnaround is done...)

[jjjjj]

Would it be correct to say that a system with circular motion in it has to have forces like gravity, electromagnetism, etc, to not lose anything?