'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[Pirate88179]

Hey farmhand

You have to remained focused and not get distracted by non-issues and the concept of inertia as I said relies on the fact that something must fundamentally act on nothing.





People are creating BS circumstances to justify the fact they do not or cannot answer the fundamental question which is ... inertia is based on the observation that something is somehow acting on nothing. Something cannot resist the motion of something else without a frame of reference which relates to a tangible force on some level and in the case of inertia there is none.@Bill



@Bill

So how do you think this relates to the fact Inertia implies something must act on nothing Bill?. Your post is a non-issue and it is completely irrelevant because if you were actually paying attention you would know I said "space" not referring to low orbit which is a BS argument at best. So let's suppose it is in deep space billions of miles from nowhere what then Bill?. Just answer the question.... do you believe something can act on nothing or not?. That is the question not BS circumstances which have no real relation to the real question. A simple yes or no would be more than sufficient Bill.




AC

It is totally relevant because, even in deep space as in your new example, nothing is at rest.  There will be a velocity and therefore, inertia.

(Provided, of course, that your spring has mass) See?  Relevant.  Please try to keep up with your own thought experiment.  You are the one that created the conditions for your example.

Bill

[allcanadian]

@Bill


I understand your point bill I really do however again you have completely avoided the fundamental question I am asking. Why we could suppose that our buckets and spring are in the middle of a wormhole being attacked by fairies riding unicorns however this does distract from the fundamental question you do not seem to want to answer.


Here is the question Bill, the only question that matters in this whole conversation.... get ready Bill here it is.


*****Do you or do you not agree that in my example Inertia directly implies that something must act on nothing because there is nothing to act on?.*****


Simple question Bill, not all that complicated and I am not sure how I could possibly make it more clear to you that this is the only question I am interested in as well as your answer.... yes or no?.


AC

[Pirate88179]

@Bill


I understand your point bill I really do however again you have completely avoided the fundamental question I am asking. Why we could suppose that our buckets and spring are in the middle of a wormhole being attacked by fairies riding unicorns however this does distract from the fundamental question you do not seem to want to answer.


Here is the question Bill, the only question that matters in this whole conversation.... get ready Bill here it is.


*****Do you or do you not agree that in my example Inertia directly implies that something must act on nothing because there is nothing to act on?.*****


Simple question Bill, not all that complicated and I am not sure how I could possibly make it more clear to you that this is the only question I am interested in as well as your answer.... yes or no?.


AC

No, I do not agree.  You even said yourself in your example that bucket A pushed against bucket B and visa versa.  In your example, you do not even need a bucket B.  Simply release the compressed spring (In deep space...whatever) and, if you set a datum point of the position of bucket A and the spring prior to the release, both will move away from each other in opposite directions.  The spring, which has less mass than bucket A will of course move faster and further from your datum point than bucket A...but...both will move.

This was proven on space walks on various missions but none more than those on the Shuttle.  If an astronaut pushed himself off away from the shuttle, both moved in opposite directions.  (I know I am back to the orbital example but bare with me)  The astronaut moved a lot more than the shuttle even though both were weightless, they both still had mass and the shuttle movement was barely perceptible but it was there as it was measurable.

So, the shuttle is bucket A, the astronaut and his arms are your coiled spring, and they both moved away from each other even though all they had to push against was the mass of each other.  NASA said this confirmed Newton.


Bill

[oscillipoint]

@Bill
If we are to assume as currently accepted science suggests, that space has no structure, then why does light supposedly have a defined top speed?  Why not an unrestrained speed?

Perhaps the answer could be that just as the speed of light in a substance is restrained/resisted through the unavoidable process of absorption and re-emission, the vacuum also imposes unavoidable conditions on the passage of light.

Surely we aren't supposed to assume that photons cognitively decide on their own top speed?

[allcanadian]

@Bill
Your not getting this but that's fine because it took a long time for me to get it as well.

Imagine you are in space with the space station and you push away from it. You move in one direction and the space station because it is very massive moves a little in the opposite direction. This is very intuitive and easy to understand however if the space station did not have the property we call Inertia then when you pushed on it it would move away from you however you would not move at all. If the space station did not have the property of inertia then when you went to push on it you would feel basically no pressure on your hands as if you were not pushing on anything.

When an object is resisting a change in motion in space where there is no friction to confuse matters we can see the object has literally nothing to act on in order to resist your pushing or a change in motion other that itself. It is as if the object has attached itself to the fabric of space in some way to resist any change in motion. The real issue here is common sense and normality when we forget to challenge things which are so normal to us we take them completely for granted.

My insight came in the way of a tennis ball hanging from some fishing line in my garage which serves as a marker when I park my truck. I saw it one day and thought... that ball is weightless right now because the line has counteracted the force of gravity. So I poked it and thought if it is weightless but still has mass and there is no real friction present then why does it resist my pushing?. It can't be the string, it isn't the air so how can an object resist a change in motion when it has nothing to act on to counteract the force I have applied to it. The force we call Inertia must act internally on every particle of what we call an object in some way resisting all changes in motion. So really when we say Oh that's just Inertia what we are really saying is... I believe that object has the capacity to act on itself or in effect nothing at all.

My insight was that Inertia is not normal, Inertia implies that the internal matter of an object has the capacity to hold or grab on to what we consider to be an empty space to resist a change in motion. You have to ask the question how can it resist if the space around it is empty... resist against what?. Inertia imples matter has the ability to interact with what we consider empty space thus we come full circle back to the topic at hand and impossible rocket drives.


AC