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

[gravityblock]

Yes, given the chance water does fall down around lighter objects.

Can you please clarify what you're saying yes to.  Are you saying it does qualify as a reaction-less drive, or are you saying it does not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock

[gravityblock]

LOL, You can choose to show your work or not.  So far it is not.

Sure, I'll write a computer program that is in-line with the process described in the hypothetical.  I'll let you review the source code.  Do you know how to code MarkE?  I think I'll write it in assembly language.

Gravock

[MarkE]

Can you please clarify what you're saying yes to.  Are you saying it does qualify as a reaction-less drive, or are you saying it does not qualify as a reaction-less drive?

Gravock

LOL, you are of course joking.  The video demonstrated that water that has been lifted up by expending work falls right back down given the chance.

[MarkE]

Sure, I'll write a computer program that is in-line with the process described in the hypothetical.  I'll let you review the source code.  Do you know how to code MarkE?  I think I'll write it in assembly language.

Gravock

You are welcome to present whatever you want, obfuscated however you like. 

[minnie]

   gravityblock you've been a bit "lost" with a few of your latest analogies.
   Maybe you can program computers but just think hard as to why the
   little screw floats up the tube. Just use known science to work out the
   metronomes.
     I agree that with a "hypothetical" case you can bend the rules if you
    want to.
       Can "dogma" exist as it used to in these days of rapid communication
    between the more or less whole population of the world? The brightest
    minds get to cast their "eagle eyes" over all this stuff.
       I love this forum because it's not censored to death, everyone has their
    own ideas and the reader can choose to follow a contributor or not as the
    reader chooses.
             John.