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

[gravityblock]

Throwing two rocks of the same mass in opposite directions at the same time with the same force will result in no movement.

Throwing one rock at a time will cause either movement or it will reduce movement depending on which way the rocks are thrown.

There was never any danger of the case being otherwise. Anyone with half a brain can see why that is so. The finer details of how much is neither here nor there unless calculations are done like MarkE did. Thanks Mark.

.

Anyone with half a brain can see that MarkE didn't do the calculations according to the process described in the hypothetical.  Yeah, thank MarkE for giving us a false visualization of the hypothetical process.  What a way to be, lol.  I did say MarkE was going to draw the wrong visualization before he even posted any calculations.  How did I know that?  Because it's easy enough to work out the finer details in your head without even resorting to any kind of math.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Personally, I chalk Shawyer's ideas up to something that belongs in the Museum of Unworkable Devices.  I think his idea is akin to propelling something by placing a laser in a cavity with a highly reflective mirror at one end and a highly absorbant material at the other.  Or to put it another way:  a fan in a sailboat blowing on the sailboat's sail.

Farmhand,

MarkE put both the EmDrive and the sailboat blowing on it's own sail into the Museum of Unworkable Devices, even though empirical evidence says otherwise.  Yeah, let's thank MarkE again for another false-hood.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

CuriousChris I go with what the weight of evidence tells us.  At this point in time it tells us that there isn't any known way to propel something without moving something else recognizable the opposite way.  That gives me a very low expectation that a reactionless drive can be devised.  Should someone come up with strong contrary evidence, then the collective we would be remiss to ignore such evidence.

The above is a quote by MarkE found on another thread which is related to this topic.  According to MarkE, the weight of the evidence at this time says there isn't any known way to propel something without moving something else recognizable the opposite way, and he has a very low expectation of a reaction-less drive being devised.  I'm sorry Farmhand for raining on MarkE's parade, but the weight of emperical evidence is substantial as we find in nature, from fish to birds, and from insects to micro-organisms.  Yeah, let's thank MarkE again for another false assertion and misdirection.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
I like this quote from the link you posted. I have found this to be true and there is little progress to be made in examining local superficial events if one is unable to see the big picture. It should come as no surprise that the true nature of the Primary Fields and Inertia are completely unknown to science. My premise is simple... if it don't work then don't do it thus I reject the popular understanding of how things are supposed to work.

Concerning the boat and rocks experiment, I think it's important to see the contradiction in terms. In science they try to make absolute statements such as if I throw the two rocks in opposite directions there in no net motion in either direction. The contradiction here is that it is implied that there can never be any net motion under any circumstances however this is obviously not true. As such it is seldom if ever a matter of facts but moreso the context in which they apply or do not apply. In effect people tend to distort the facts to suit their own beliefs ultimately leading to the religion of modern science. It is no wonder 47% of scientists have falsified data or know someone who has in order to substantiate their beliefs. In essense it's a quagmire and is seldom if ever as it seems on the surface.

The fact is we may have one truth in one context which is completely false in another as we see with the boat and rocks experiment. So we must ask what is the truth when the truth is variable dependent on the context in which it applies. As such my tool for success is not a textbook but thought experiments to determine my own truth for myself.
It's a whacky world.


AC

It's good to see someone else who gets it!

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Because they were tone deaf back then?

Bill

No, because they were more intelligent than those of today who think "you have to speed up to slow down, and slow down to speed up".  In other words, they were in tune with nature and reality, unlike those of today.

Gravock