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

[allcanadian]

Hey Bill


It is strange that anyone here would argue one or the other who occupies these forums might be mad when 99% of the world out there would consider all of us mad for being here and debating such things. Thus we may come to understand we here are not them and we are more like each other than any one of them out there whether we want to admit it or not. I find that comforting in a strange way because mad is relative and make no mistake they out there are mad.


AC

[SoManyWires]

Hey Bill


It is strange that anyone here would argue one or the other who occupies these forums might be mad when 99% of the world out there would consider all of us mad for being here and debating such things. Thus we may come to understand we here are not them and we are more like each other than any one of them out there whether we want to admit it or not. I find that comforting in a strange way because mad is relative and make no mistake they out there are mad.


AC

this place appears to have its healthy share of sick people, yes you are correct at noticing that.
there are some good examples worth the thoughts though. so its not a total loss when it comes to learning something useful
because of the knowledgable people and other device concept real time developers offering their time for other future potentials.

inspiring noticing the level of effort they build their projects with.
and even just some of the yet to be tried concepts.

[Pirate88179]

Hey Bill


It is strange that anyone here would argue one or the other who occupies these forums might be mad when 99% of the world out there would consider all of us mad for being here and debating such things. Thus we may come to understand we here are not them and we are more like each other than any one of them out there whether we want to admit it or not. I find that comforting in a strange way because mad is relative and make no mistake they out there are mad.


AC

Well, of course I agree.  The guy that decides if I am mad or not might indeed be madder than me.  So, who gets to decide?

That is the question.

I have no problem with our current debate. One of us is wrong, or, both of us are wrong, or, both of us are right.  I, of course, think I am correct but, that does not mean that I am.

I had a thought today at work...here goes.

OK, so we have atoms making up all matter and, the higher the density, the more atoms there are.  So, what if, all of those spinning electrons in orbit exhibit a type of gyroscopic precession (or resistance to movement) but, since they are all scattered about and not aligned, the resistance would not be organized to resist in a left or right movement.  What I mean is, if matter has all of these spinning particles, maybe that is where the resistance to movement comes from?  So, in deep space, in your example, they can push off from each other because of the rotation of their fundamental particles that make up the matter in the first place?  This really might not be too far off if you think about it.  We know that gyroscopes work in space so, on an atomic scale, this might be what is really happening?

Bill

[allcanadian]

Bill

OK, so we have atoms making up all matter and, the higher the density, the more atoms there are.  So, what if, all of those spinning electrons in orbit exhibit a type of gyroscopic precession (or resistance to movement) but, since they are all scattered about and not aligned, the resistance would not be organized to resist in a left or right movement.  What I mean is, if matter has all of these spinning particles, maybe that is where the resistance to movement comes from?  So, in deep space, in your example, they can push off from each other because of the rotation of their fundamental particles that make up the matter in the first place?  This really might not be too far off if you think about it.  We know that gyroscopes work in space so, on an atomic scale, this might be what is really happening?

What you are suggesting sounds similar to my thoughts and Inertia implies that the parts of a body have the ability to act on themselves. I find it strange that more have not questioned the true nature of these effects. As well if a body has the ability to apply a force to "resist" an acceleration in itself then the alter ego is that it may be able to apply a force to "assist" an acceleration in itself. Resist and assist are simply the same forces acting in a different direction.




In any case I cannot see the logic in someone saying... no body may act upon itself even if we know Inertia does.




AC

[allcanadian]

I thought I would share a lesson in perspective I learned early on which goes a long way towards understanding.


First look around the room at any objects that may be present and make a mental note of how you perceive them. The popular view is that it is simply an object however we know they are an aggregate of smaller particles and fields in incredible motion. As well when we see an object we perceive that it is tangible when there is little tangibility to it because it is mostly empty space at the particle-field level.



Here is the perceptual problem most of us inherently have. Imagine you have a white piece of paper and we will call all that white stuff empty space. Now draw a big black circle in the middle of the page and we will call this tangible matter... do you see the problem?. We see the big black circle as tangible matter and we see it is surrounded by empty space however what we seldom understand is the relationship between them.



For instance the area of black versus white on our page has changed from when it was empty or all white. The area occupied by our black circle is no longer white therefore we must acknowledge the fact that more black-matter means less white-empty space. As such any properties we relate to any volume of space may be due to the fact more matter is present in that volume or less empty space is present in that volume and vice versa. We must ask is the change in properties due to more matter being present as we assumed or is it due to the fact less empty space is present because it is occupied by matter?. Fundamentally more black must mean less white and by drawing our black circle on our white page the page has changed in not one way but in two ways... there is more black "and" less white.

There are always two sides to every coin.




Now we have another problem, in order for energy to move from point A to point B then it must occupy every point in between. Thus if energy is truly conserved then the energy radiated from every star in the known universe must be present in our supposed "empty space" to a greater or lesser degree at every point. So we must ask is our white paper representing empty space truly"empty"? and if black-matter must displace white-space then energy must have been displaced in the process.




AC