The Paradox Engine

[gravityblock]

"Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman."

Gravock, you have brought that famous quote to my mind. Are you really serious that you don't understand why, according to Newton physics and math, the kinetic energy energy equation has velocity SQUAREd?

Many people don't understand why the 1/2 is there. Do you understand why the 1/2 is there?

And do you really not understand why, within the internal logic of Relativity, Einstein left out the 1/2 in his famous Energy equation?

I am not trying to start a debate with you. I just want you to tell me that you are not joking and really do not understand it.


CANGAS 68

This isn't a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I posted.  Please post your rebuttal so we may start the debate in which you do not want to start.

Gravock

[tesla2]

hey i Like design and speak about theory !!!


fast rotation is changing body Q = m*g

problem is  very simple to explain

Posts: 730   



m=1kg

V respect to electric engine's stative

R- earth center distance

R = 6400 000 meters

m*V^2 /R = m*g


V^2 = R * m*g / m

V^2 = R*g = 64000000

V = 8 000 m/s


What mean above equation ? please study Ytube

http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs

I designed engine and I made test ( Nasa informed about own raport 4 weeks ago - my first test 2012 )

http://tesla4.blogspot.com

[TinselKoala]

You are using g = acceleration of Earth's gravity = about 10 m/s²  ?


It would be helpful to us novices if you would put your units into your calculations. I just spent half an hour trying to figure out your equation using the universal gravitational constant G instead of Earth's gravitational acceleration, and of course the units don't work out in that case.

[forest]

Is there any "law of conservation of work" ? something like : for the same input energy it is always the same amount of work done ? 

[Tusk]

Hi Tesla2, your concept makes no reference to the secondary reaction at the centre of mass for which there is a definition in my OP. The secondary reaction is at the very core of this concept (although there are other vital elements in employing it effectively) and I recommend that you examine it. While there appears to be no mention of it in the literature, I have sufficient data and theoretical support to make a strong claim that it manifests as described.

Is there any "law of conservation of work" ? something like : for the same input energy it is always the same amount of work done ? 

Hi forest, assuming that was tongue in cheek (if not then apologies) so consider the secondary reaction - i.e. a force equal to the applied force - which has the unique ability to accelerate a mass while maintaining frame of reference with that mass; or more simply, much like a rocket engine, velocity has no impact on either the work done or the acceleration - although the rocket must eject mass to function whereas the secondary reaction does not. The rocket engine (or reaction engine if you prefer) always applies force from the frame of reference of the body on which it acts so that acceleration from say 10m/sec to 20m/sec costs no more than acceleration from 110m/sec to 120m/sec.


Sadly most of the rocket's energy goes out the back with the ejecta. With the secondary reaction there is no such issue, just a 'free' additional force that applies unaffected by the velocity of the mass on which it acts. Therefore work done accelerating the PE apparatus' disk simultaneously accelerates the main rotor arm (which carries the disk) and does so not by simple torque effects but by the secondary reaction at the centre of mass of the disk (the axis) which manifests at no additional cost other than a more rapidly accelerating disk, which would be a curse if we were attempting to motivate the thing with springs but with EM motivation it's more of a blessing. So that due to the nature of the secondary reaction, our main rotor arm accelerates by motivation of a force which recognizes no starting point; accelerating much like a rocket engine, paying no respect whatsoever to the usual cost of the v² in the equation (which typically demands respect when the force is anchored in the initial frame of reference).

I have spent many hours trying to theorise some reason why this extra force might not provide additional energy/work other than CoE; but the theory always comes back around to supporting the experimental data. Once you allow the existence of the secondary reaction the main theme is pretty much self evident.