Here's an idea I've had for a while about why the Explorer I rocket in 1958 went far higher than Von Braun had expected, as Richard Hoagland described on his site enterprisemission.com. My explanation is so simple I'm almost surprised Von Braun was stumped by the problem for so long, except that he was mired in rocket equations. I think I have thought of something that is either kept secret by the space agencies because they don't want to admit their top scientists were confused, or it's just so simple that the establishment overlooked it. It has to do not only with Explorer I going "too high", but also the Russian mission that "overshot" the moon, and the space probes that go "too far" away from the sun to be accounted for, or that gain "a little more" velocity than expected from their gravity fly-by sling-shot maneuvers.
As Richard Hoagland said, it does have something to do with rotation (and of course gyroscopes, because gyroscopes rotate). Hoagland seems to think that rotation somehow pulls in extra energy from the 4th spatial dimension. He's into hyperdimensional physics. That's his whole gig. But I don't think hyperdimensional physics, nor rotation per se, is required to explain the "extra energy".
Any object that contains internal motion, whether through rotating gyroscopes, swinging pendulums, heat, or even circulating fluid, will experience orbital "anomalies" and here's why: Objects don't orbit; particles do. This is pretty simple. It's the same reason gyroscopes "work". Objects don't follow Newton's laws; particles do. Taken as an object, the gyroscope "defies the laws of physics". However, considering it's internal motion, i.e. the motion of its particles, gyroscopic motion makes perfect sense. In the same sense, even though Explorer I as an object shouldn't have gone that high, if you follow the orbital path of each of its particles, it makes sense. Every particle is in an orbit at each instant. Orbits are altered through collisions, energy is exchanged, but angular momentum remains the same. This is happening all the time to every particle, even those in "stationary" solids, liquids, and gases, including within the Earth itself. It's all orbit, maintained through the conservation of angular momentum. What we think of as "non-celestial" is really how things move when they keep colliding in orbit. Like the ground, for example. When you stand on it, you are a celestial body that keeps colliding with it. Your body at each instant wants to fall in an elliptical path starting off for an instant eastward with the rotation of the earth and then dropping sharply downward immediately after. Luckily it is met by particles within the ground that are coming back the other way, in vibrations of heat, which push your body back in the opposite direction. Everything on the Earth that seems gridlocked or "stationary" is constantly exchanging orbital energy with other particles in the form of heat. The average orbital velocity in any large enough "statonary" object is always about zero (if you subtract the average eastward velocity due to the Earth's rotation for that latitude), but if you zoom in close enough you can see Brownian motion, or even closer, heat, which is where all matter behaves celestially even if "resting on earth." Nature doesn't make up different rules depending on whether the particles are in space or "moving with the Earth."
You spin a rocket about the vertical axis, and each particle is going to gain some horizontal velocity. This means that the average particle within a spinning rocket has a different orbit than a particle within a non-spinning rocket. The orbit of a "stationary" particle is highly eccentric, and would pass straight through the center of the Earth, if let free fall, save for the Earth's eastward rotation, and the heat the particle carries.
So back to Explorer I's spin on its vertical axis. The average particle in the spinning rocket has a horizontal velocity faster than that in a non-spinning rocket. Thus each particle's instantaneous orbital path, on average, stays more horizontal for longer than those in a non-spinning rocket. You can see this easily if you see that the orbital ellipse is longer in the horizontal direction when you "let go" of an object with horizontal velocity. But the orbital path of the particles in the non-spinning rocket curve almost straight down very fast (follow a very thin ellipse going almost straight down very soon). And if the Earth were not spinning and they had no heat, their orbital ellipse would actually be a straight line down. Of course, there is some baseline heat in both rockets (presumably vibrating equally in all directions), and the eastward spin of the Earth that complicate the details. But the general principle is the same: Add internal motion, at all, and the rocket's orbital behavior will change. (By definition it would be counterbalanced by other internal motion with opposite momentum, leading to no external motion or use of a propellant). Add HORIZONTAL internal motion as an independent variable, and the rocket will certainly react differently to vertical forces than a rocket "in the control group." (It's not really "anistropy of space" or "varaible inertia" at work here as Hoagland and DePalma, respectively, suggest. It's just the orbital path of a whole object being changed by alterating the "sum" orbital path of its particles.)
Now consider what happens as the spinning rocket starts to go up. Actual speed of each particle is a combination of its vertical velocity and its horizontal velocity. (Square root of the sum of the squares, since the two are perpendicular). The particles in a spinning rocket, gaining velocity not only from their vertical motion but also from the spin of the rocket, can be seen to have longer orbital ellipses. The apogee (highest orbital altitude) of each particle in the upward-moving and spinning rocket has a higher altitude than the apogee in the rocket that is moving up at the same speed but not spinning. Both rockets, if thrust were shut off completely at the same velocity and altitude, would continue on up to the altitude of its particles' average apogee. This will be higher for the spinning rocket than for a non-spinning one, because the apogee of any particle with a horizontal velocity COMBINED WITH an upward velocity, will be higher than the apogee of a particle with only the upward velocity and no horiztonal velocity. (Whichever one has the greater velocity at the same altitude will have a higher apogee.) Likewise if a spinning rocket is going down. But if it is going down, it falls down towards an imaginary apogee on the other side of the Earth that it will not reach before crashing to the ground. Keep in mind that in the spinning rocket (assuming it's moving straight up), the horizontal velocity is kept all bottled up inside the rocket's spin. This does not mean, however, that the average particle's "desire" to reach the altitude of its apogee will be diminished at all (even if as the rocket passes through the "plane" of all the average apogees). Similarly, the particles within a gyroscope do not seem to know or even care that their motion is running in cycles, aiming for location far "outside" the gyroscope and dragging that part of the wheel accordingly. All they seem to know is their instantaneous momentum.
This explains Dr. Bruce DePalma's "spinning ball" experiment. The particles within the spinning ball have different orbital paths than "stationary" objects. They happily rise farther and fall faster as they race toward the altitude (or negative altitude in the case of downward motion) of their particles' average apogee.
Of course, you will have to give up Newton's theory of gravity, and thus Einstein's inescapable black holes (you could escape a black hole in a rotating rocket, or fall into one faster than the speed of light). All you need is the conservation of angular momentum. It's not gravity or anti-gravity that's existing here. It's just the conservation of angular momentum. Newton always thought there was gravity because the trajectories he saw were always so downward and so quick, he didn't know they were orbits being corrected by the ground (whose individual particles are also in orbit at each instant and corecting one another in a gridlocked lattice).
When you consider that the Earth is rotating eastward, counterclockwise when looking down in the North, some latitudes have a considerable amount of eastward motion "built-in" that will influence the instantaeous velocity of particles in a spinning rocket. But it's the velocity of the average particle that counts, as the rocket is taken as a whole object. This does not mean, however, that the rotation of the earth is cancelled out in a linear relationship as a particle oscillates in the east-west direction within the rocket as the whole rocket goes eastward. Though the rate of increase in effect is positive at all increases in rate of spin (because there are 4 cardinal directions, west being only 1 of them) it hits a minimum when the average westward momentum of particles going straight west is equal to the eastward velocity of the earth's spin at that latitude. Then as the rocket spins even faster than that, the rate of increase in the effect is higher than the rate of increase in spin, but less and less so until the Earth's eastward velocity is negligible compared to the rocket's average internal westward motion. In other words, more spin is more effect, but less and less so, until more spin is even more effect, but ever so slightly less so, as it asymptotically approaches a 1:1 relationship between change in spin and a change effect as the earth's spin because negligible.
This leads to one easy solution to free energy: Spin a disc, lift it up, brake its spin into a generator until it nearly stops, let it drop, and get energy out of it's fall. Repeat. It would be as if the power company keeps sending you golden eggs through the wires, and instead of pumping them right back to the ground to extract energy out of their flow through the circuit, you take a section of the wire they are in, and put the gold up for loan at interest before sending it back. You can always say you've got that length of wire "on deposite" as long as the power is flowing. Then use the interest to buy more wire and more power.
In other words, use power to do something "non-Newtonian", get energy out of the non-Newtonian effect, and then sell the power right back.
Note: The Biefield-Brown effect uses the same principle. Although it DOES USE electrical wind, and does not work alone in a vacuum, the gains in velocity are more than can be expected through ion-wind thrust alone. That's because you have squeezed large amounts of internal motion into the electron orbitals of the negative plate. (Not just the energy of them being in there as though in a normal atomic orbit counterbalanced in charged, but more protons, but you've also added in the energy it took to squeeze them all in there without adding more protons, and squeeze goes right into internal motion.) The tightly squeezed electron orbitals give a boost to the ion-wind lift (or drop). The Biefield-Brown effect won't work in a vacuum, but non-Newtonian effects will be observed on the negative plate whenever it is charged up and pushed.
I have explained why Explorer I and DePalma's spinning ball went "too high" and a possible explanation of the Biefield-Brown effect. These are fairly easy examples to see because they involve actual circular paths of motion.
When we apply these same principles to gridlocked motion, it will get spooky. I can explain the Allais pendulum effect (pendulums precessing backwards during an eclipse) pretty easily, using only the principles of heat and the spin of the Earth, but it requires the application of orbital paths to "gridlocked heat," or the motion within stationary objects.
Furthermore I can explain how the Joe Cell, possibly the Pyramids, and other kinds of "orgone accumulators" work even though they seem not to move, pretty easily, by applying the principles of orbital motion to "gridlocked heat" and the Corriolis effect. And why, given the diferent heat conductances of land masses, water, and air, why there is an "Earth grid" that shapes and is shaped by the location of the continents. And of course, it has to do with Coral Castle. And the fact that magnets are related to spin. How not all heat is equal, and some forms can allow for the very easy cutting of stone in certain directions, and different speeds of light through the same space in different directions. Heat behaves far more intricately with the spin of the Earth and different speeds of conductance, and is much more involved with the phenomenon of so-called "gravity" than popular thermodynamics describes.
Let me know if anyone would be interested in discussing more...
So, by your reasoning, is there a qualitative difference between 'orbital momentum' and 'spin momentum'?
TS
That depends on the velocity involved. DePalma and others focus on angular momentum, which I think is wise, unless you start thinking in terms of orbit. Then it's velocity that is the far more important factor. Whether you're putting a moon or a pea into orbit, it's the velocity that counts? (Although the energy expended to reach that velocity will differ greatly.)
If the spin of the particle means it actually contains internal motion, then it's orbit would be affected. But if the particle has no size, then nothing can move around inside it, internal velocity cannot be achieved through spin, and orbit cannot be altered accordingly. So, in the case of a particle of zero size, there would be a qualitative difference, I believe.
I would also like to correct myself regarding the "race towards the altitude of the average particles' apogee" through this thought experiment. Imagine you have a spinning disc, rotating at astronomical speed. It will NOT shoot up, even though its average particles' apogee is somewhere off just slightly below the horizon, and "high" out above sea level, considering the rotation is extremely fast. However, if PUSHED up ever so slightly, that ORBITAL path of each particle, on average, will shoot up ABOVE the horizon before curving downward, and it is that average orbital path, that the rocket strives to follow. Thus the spinning rocket will shoot up when pushed up, opposed NOT by a downward force of "1 g of gravity" but rather against the force it would take to change the shape of the average particles' orbit. The race is NOT towards an the altitude of an apogee (they're all scattered nearly circularly about the horizon). But the rocket's sum total of its particles' orbital behavior is definitely changed by the rotating of the rocket. And thus the orbital path of the rocket itself, taken as an object, will seem to be "non-Newtonian."
Of course, the rocket's rotation doesn't have to be so astronomically high for the effect to take place. Actually it is the ratio between upward velocity of the rocket, and the horizontal velocity of the average particle, that would determine how much the rocket's orbital behavior is "altered" by the spin.
QuoteBut if the particle has no size, then nothing can move around inside it, internal velocity cannot be achieved through spin, and orbit cannot be altered accordingly. So, in the case of a particle of zero size, there would be a qualitative difference, I believe.
Speaking of spin, my head is now spinning. It's making me.....
Dizzy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1n5CQe1krI)
Quote from: Radical Ryan on January 16, 2013, 07:59:33 AM
Let me know if anyone would be interested in discussing more...
I would be interested in an experiment which can prove your point. Words are cheap, we need facts that could be verified empirically.
Greetings, Conrad
Check Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment. This can be easily duplicated.
Check the orbital paths of Explorer I and some of the earlier Russian attempts to crash into the moon. They all experienced an "inexplicable" boost in orbit.
Consider also where the burden lies in who has to show who what. What assumptions do we have that we think are bolstered by the scientific facts, when experiments haven't actually been done to prove it (just cheap talk)? That a non-spinning object will behave the same as a spinning one is one such assumption, I think, until you actually look at the data. Why would one assume that spinning a rocket WOULDN'T affect its orbit? One might also assume that a gyroscope will not precess until seeing it or learning about it. I venture to guess that we ALL have to LEARN at some point that a spinning wheel has some "unexpected" behavior (not built into babies). Likewise, the spinning rockets DID experience some "anomalous" orbits. Maybe it's time to update our assumptions likewise with the spinning rockets as we did with gyroscopes.
I thought and thought about the DATA for a long time before I ventured to theorize what was actually happening. This idea took not so cheap effort.
If a thermalized atom is ionized with x number of high frequency photons the free electrons carry both the original momentum of the atom plus the electron orbital momentum. Upon encountering a magnetic field the free electron momentum is altered. The photons emitted are in excess of the photons invested to ionize the atom. An anology: A truck full of rocks is speeding down the highway, A tree limb brushes the top of the pile of rocks and 4 rocks fall from the truck. The rocks roll down the highway until they get to a curve in the road. They leave the roadway and crash into a car parked along side the highway on the curve. Damage to car is far in excess then just brushing it with the tree limb.
We can get a hook on thermalized atoms by phase changing them to plasma. Plasma will react to electric and magnetic fields whereas neutral atoms in motion (heat) do not. This process is in agreement with all thermodynamic laws it is just that the degradation of the heat is not reliant on random process. A roadway is established through a sector of space allowing for ordered degradation of a chaotic state.
Fascinating information! Thanks for posting Radical Ryan. I'll say it's somewhat over my head at the moment but I find it very interesting. I knew someone who I was in personal contact with who had developed an anti-gravity device using gyro's in different axes as well as orbiting about each other IIRC. Last I heard he was taking the idea to a university and I haven't heard any more since (years ago).
I do recall reading about Von Brauns overshot and some of the other info but didn't recall why. I think your ideas are worth expanding here. I'm not sure I completely understand your idea on getting energy out of spinning disc, stopping it with a generator and then dropping it etc. That is I'm having a hard time visualizing such a setup. Do you believe you would be getting overunity out of such a setup?
You guys should research modern satellites that need to be able to change their orientation while in orbit to take pictures or do Earth scans, etc. They have spinning gyros in them for orientation. After a certain amount of time the gyros are spinning too fast and the satellite does a "spin down" where it burns some rocket fuel. This is to counteract the spinning down of the gyros which would normally cause a spin-up of the satellite so that after the spin-down it is in a non-moving orientation without the gyros turning. Then as the satellite does its work and changes orientation, the gyros inevitably start to spin up again. While the satellite is doing all of these gyroscopic gymnastics, the orbital path around the Earth is not affected.
I really don't think that you will uncover anything new with respect to gyroscopic forces and angular momentum but good luck.
:D Rayan :D
Thank you for posting. It's refreshing debating with people based on experimentation and not faith. Agreeing or disagreeing, thank you for sharing links.
I have a simple question unrelated to gravity but related to speed:
Kinetic energy is proportional to V2 . Suppose that we have a rocket in space with massless fuel and there is no gravity involved (nor orbits). It spends half of the fuel to achieve velocity V by producing energy E. The next half of the fuel is also spent producing again another energy E. The final speed is 2V. But kinetic energy is now proportional to 4V2. The amount of the energy spent by the rocket is linear along the time but the kinetic energy grows faster. Why?
Thank you.
Schuler:
QuoteI have a simple question unrelated to gravity but related to speed:
Kinetic energy is proportional to V2 . Suppose that we have a rocket in space with massless fuel and there is no gravity involved (nor orbits). It spends half of the fuel to achieve velocity V by producing energy E. The next half of the fuel is also spent producing again another energy E. The final speed is 2V. But kinetic energy is now proportional to 4V2. The amount of the energy spent by the rocket is linear along the time but the kinetic energy grows faster. Why?
You state that like it is a fact, but are you sure that it's true?
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
Your question is very good indeed. I'm not sure. The reason I'm not sure is that equations are tools to model reality. But equations aren't reality. And some equations around are so much taken from granted (believed with faith) that they aren't truly tested (in my opinion). This kind of thinking might hide discoveries right in front of our nooses. This is in part why I appreciate Ryan's thinking: he is exercising rationality instead of believing in the surrounding faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy)
It's well know that kinetic energy is proportional to v
2. It's also known that:
QuoteRocket engines produce the same force regardless of their velocity.[/size]
Above statement has been taken from: [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect)[/size]
:) Have Fun :)
Hi Ryan,
I would like to take the freedom about explaining your point of view to others in the case it wasn't clear to everyone.
QuoteSpin a disc, lift it up, brake its spin into a generator until it nearly stops, let it drop, and get energy out of it's fall.
Lifting a spinning disk (according to Ryan consumes less energy than retrieving in the fall. Assuming this is true and he has a super efficient way of spinning and then despinning (converting kinetic energy back to useful energy), than, he has OU.
Ryan's proposal can be easily (if you have the proper engineering resources) tested. If you can lift the spinning disk with less energy than the gravitational potential energy at the top, then you have OU.
Ryan, I'm not sure if I agree with the final part of your post. But this is not the central point anyway.
:) Thank you for all the fun. Keep doing. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cquvA_IpEsA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cquvA_IpEsA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=p9zhP9Bnx-k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=p9zhP9Bnx-k)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IxExVikV90 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IxExVikV90)
If you take a spinning top and place it on a truck heading east to west and you have very good bearings can you get the truck to move relative to the Earth's rotation? It has been observed that train tracks heading north to south have increased wear on the west rail. While tracks heading East to West the wear is evenly distributed. A train heading West would be better off spinning gyros and trying to stay put and let the station move away at some velocity up to 1000mph. According to my understanding of Einstein's take on energy photons or the quantified basic unit of energy is actually quantified inertia. This transfer of inertia from body of mass to body of mass is what we call energy. So when we see a car move what we actually see is the car rid itself of the photons stored in it's rest state. The fuel starts off in complete sycnhronization with the Earth as far as inertial parameters. In order to move the vehicle relative to the Earth you must change the inertial state of the vehicle relative to the Earth. You must radiate photon's associated with the rest state until you alter the inertia of the vehicle enough to see it move relative to the Earth. In a rocket or a car or a train we burden the vehicle with a fuel. This fuel takes on the inertial parameters of the Earth. We then alter the fuels inertial parameters by radiating photons and the vehicle's inertial parameters become unlike the Earth's and relative motion insues. It is unfortunate that as we radiate these photons we are unable to collect them for recycle.
To further confuse gravity could well operate under the same inertia transfer. A large body could continually radiate black photons. These photons are basically information regarding a bodies mass/velocity/and vector. These photons are adsorbed by a second body which then adjusts it's mass/velocity/and vector to more closely match the radiator body. The larger more organized the body of mass the more black photons it radiates thereby effecting the mass/velocity/and vector of surrounding stuff. The Earth's core radiates black photons which reach us at the surface. We absorb these photons when we are at rest and appear to be accelerated towards the scource. In reality (at least mine) we absorb these black photons and in so doing start to mimic the radiators mass/velocity/and vector. So gravitational pull does not exist it is more like gravitational radiance, adsorption, and reaction.
I had to share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8
Quote from: schuler on May 02, 2013, 10:16:29 AM
I had to share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8)
I've seen that one before - cool demo for anyone who has not played with gyroscopes. I just found some info recently that may come into play regarding all this. It is evidence that Newtons F=MA is WRONG. Considering so many other laws and theories are based on that it is quite interesting to note. Some one said Newton originally had a correct equation but that it got changed by someone (or even possibly by Newton due to some politics at the time). The F=MA or Force = Mass times Acceleration does not in the real world show inertial weight is present in an inertial acceleration. So why isn't the inertial weight represented in the equation? The concept of Mass seems to be taking the place of inertial weight. For an interesting paper titled "F = ma, Important Equation, Big Mistake" on this situation read the attached PDF.
Thank you e2matrix.
Another interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpCEJxO6V9g
Found in another post:
QuoteScientists from the Jagellonian University and Opole University have
observed that multiple rotation of a simple turbine showed that the
more times you turned it, the longer it rotated on its own later,
although, theoretically, it should not. They published the results of
their research in "Journal of Technical Physics".
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html)
Quote from: schuler on May 05, 2013, 08:45:53 AM
Found in another post:http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html)
Are they saying that the gyro is brought to rest and then spun up again using the same amount of input. Then a brake is applied and that the gyro appears to generate more energy than used to spin it up? This excess energy accumulates from previous spinups and braking cycles? For some reason the words inertial frame dragging come to mind.
Quote from: schuler on May 05, 2013, 08:45:53 AM
Found in another post:http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html)
My first guess would be their bearings are breaking in and getting smoother although you would expect scientists would have looked at that (or not ;) ).
Radical Ryan,
Can you please give us an EXAMPLE of how we can use your information
to make an OVERUNITY device.
.
Hi FatBird,
The idea is Half Baked.
The fist step is cheating gravity with a gyroscope. Please see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8) .
The second step is elevating the object to a higher altitude so you get gravitational potential energy. At this point, you convert back to energy (from gyroscopic energy) and stop the spinning.
The third step is converting (somehow) the gravitational potential energy into energy.
Repeat the process ad infinitum.
Hope it helps.
This should be pretty easy to prove. Just put a gyro suspended by a string to a scale. Weigh the gyro not antimated then spin it up and weigh it again.
I was reminded of this post from an e-mail reply. 5 months later I have to say yikes! That sure was unnecessarily wordy (my post). :D
Although experimentation is necessary to advance science and to test hypothesis, I would like to add this: Who carries the burden of experimental proof when there is logical consistency that is being disputed? For example, if a guy starts going around saying 1+1 equals both 2 and 3, and he happens to be believed by lots of people, who should ask who for proof? Should we have to proof to him that he is logically inconsistent by showing him over and over again that 1+1 equals 2 and NOT 3? Or should we ask him to show US how it is that he thinks 1+1 has two different answers?
When it comes to finding a logical inconsistency in the previous conclusions of science, I feel that the burden of experimentation follows different rules than it does in the case of testing a hypothesis. The hypothesis THAT two conclusions conflict cannot be resolved at the same level of reasoning that lead to the conflict. Sometimes two things that are actually in conflict can seem true independently, but when examined together provide evidence that something is wrong with the method with which we found the supposed truth. It can be shown in plain language that two other plain language statements conflict, without first proving that one is true and one is false. If I say I both DID AND DIDN'T do something, for example, you know that I am in conflict with myself. You don't have to find out through expermentation WHETHER I did or did not before you can show I could not have possibly both done and not-done it. No experiment is necessary to discover an expressed logical inconsistency, except a simple mental check for logic (if you could call that an experiment).
The conflict that I'm referring to is that 1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, 2) gyroscopic behavior derives from the motion of individual particles, 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed. These can't possibly all be true at the same time in the same universe.
Whether you heat, spin, or otherwise give kinetic energy to the individual particles within an object, you MUST change that object's orbital trajectory. That's just plain logical derivation, straight from Kepler's laws of orbit. The burden of experimenation, then, I think, lies on the scientific establisment, to show WHY an object's orbital behavior is a function of its sum-of-particles velocity, and NOT a function of the behavior of its individual particles. (while somehow reconciling this with the fact that gyroscopes depend on the behavior of individual particles even while the gyroscope as a sum is "not in motion" and how the universe somehow allows individual particle motion to give rise to gyroscopic behavior, but inhibits that SAME velocity from effecting orbit. i.e., prove to us that there are two kinds of velocity, one that is used to determine orbit and one that is used to govern the gyroscope.)
I'm just an amateur with no funds, no degree in physics, and no materials. I CAN'T do experiments. But when it comes to finding (what I believe are) logical inconsistencies in the scientific establishment, I'M NOT REQUIRED to show them anything. They are required to show how I'm wrong, that it's not important, that it just doesn't matter, or that it's a closed-loop where you have to gain entry before anything you say that's in conflict with them could possibly be right. Otherwise, I think I'm scientifically valid in continuing to believe that physics is currently an internally inconsistent science that does NOT PROHIBIT free energy, because of this inconsistency. They have some things to clear up, not me.
Thanks for reading. Unfortunately I have not been able to get youtube. China blocked it. If I get a VPN I'll definitely watch. I'm reading the Newton-FailsF-ma.pdf
Hi Ryan,
You offer an interesting contradiction:
Quote1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, ... 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed.
It seems to me that we live in a world where rationality isn't prevalent. But this is a subject for another thread. Anyway, I agree with sparks, testing is required.
Sparks, here we go with experiments:
Quote'The mathematics said there were no forces and that was correct', Laithwaite recalled. 'The thing that wouldn't go away was: can I lift a 50 pound weight with one hand or can't I? Of all the critics that I showed lifting the big wheel, none of them ever tried to explain it to me. So I decided I had to follow Faraday's example and do the experiments.' After retiring from Imperial College, laithwaite began a long series of detailed experiments. Sussex University offered him a laboratory and he formed a partnership with fellow engineer and inventor, Bill Dawson, who also funded the research. Laithwaite and Dawson spent three years from 1991 to 1994, investigating in detail the strange phenomena that had unnerved the Royal Institution. 'The first thing I wanted to find out was how I could lift a 50 pound wheel in one hand. So we set out to try to reproduce this as a hands-off experiment. Then we tackled the problem of lack of centrifugal force and the experiments were telling us that there was less centrifugal force than there should be. Meanwhile I started to do the theory. We devised more and more sophisticated experiments until, not long ago, we cracked it.' The real breakthrough came, said Laithwaite, when they realised that a precessing gyroscope could move mass through space.
Above quote was taken from: http://rense.com/general42/genius.htm
:) Have Fun :)
http://www.rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm
Based on the last two posts I was reminded that there was a person here a couple years ago who had an gyroscope based anti-gravity device. Most people were very skeptical and I think chased him off. I got in personal contact with him and between who he is and his info he shared I have no doubt he really had a working anti-graity device. As one of his descriptions to me stated - his high school aged kids walked into to his garage one day as he just had it working and said his kids who were used to his tinkerings had their jaws drop wide open as they watched his device hovering in mid-air. I know he was using gyro's on 3 different axes and was looking to get some higher RPM more powerful motors. He also told me he was contacting a University about this (which I recommended against). He did give me the basics of his setup which was similar but not exactly the same as Tesla's anti-grav device. I always thought if I got the time I'd give it a try. For any one interested I'll try digging up the info on this. This person had enough credentials I checked out and money that I have no reason to believe he was faking any of this. He was not asking for anything at all. Unfortunately the usual negative skepticism that often occurs here probably drove him away.
I would like to resume some of the interesting parts from these thread:
QuoteKinetic energy is proportional to V2 . Suppose that we have a rocket in space with massless fuel and there is no gravity involved (nor orbits). It spends half of the fuel to achieve velocity V by producing energy E. The next half of the fuel is also spent producing again another energy E. The final speed is 2V. But kinetic energy is now proportional to 4V2. The amount of the energy spent by the rocket is linear along the time but the kinetic energy grows faster.
Quoteincompatible statements: 1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, ... 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed.
QuoteThe mathematics said there were no forces and that was correct', Laithwaite recalled. 'The thing that wouldn't go away was: can I lift a 50 pound weight with one hand or can't I? Of all the critics that I showed lifting the big wheel, none of them ever tried to explain it to me. So I decided I had to follow Faraday's example and do the experiments.'
no rocket has masslees fuel, no projectile can be pushed without a reaction.
momentum is conserved.
if you calculate the energy of your rocket at each speed V 2V etc and include
the energy of the reaction mass i think you will find something interesting.
note while the rocket gives it`s reaction mass a set speed relative to the rocket
its speed compared to the rest point changes with the rocket velocity.
i suggest you simplify the math by having you rocket eject mass in chunks at say
one second intervals.
fritznien
Hi.
I would like to copy/paste about fuel less rockets (thruster might be a better term).
QuoteEmDrive (also Relativity Drive) is the name of a spacecraft propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion) system proposed, and reportedly developed, by Roger Shawyer.[1] New Scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist) ran a cover story on EmDrive in its 8 September 2006 issue.[1] The device is a magnetron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron) with a specially shaped, fully enclosed tapering resonator cavity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonator_cavity) whose area is greater at one end. The inventor claims that the device generates thrust even though no detectable energy leaves the device. The inventor proposes to use it as a spacecraft propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion) system that uses no fuel (other than electricity), and no reaction mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_mass).[2]
On his homepage[3] the inventor claims that independent peer-review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review) is under way. Chinese researchers claim to have validated the EmDrive technology, and created a working device.[4][5] An English translation of the peer reviewed article is available from the inventor's website.[6] Yang Juan, professor of propulsion theory and engineering of aeronautics and astronautics at the Northwestern Polytechnic University in Xian, claims in a peer reviewed journal to have built a model that produces 0.72 Newtons (0.16 lb.) of thrust from 2.5 kW of input power. By comparison, the NASA HiPEP ion thruster, intended for use on the JIMO mission but never deployed, requires 25-50 kW of power, delivers 0.46-0.67 Newtons of thrust, and relies on Xenon gas as a reaction mass.[7] When the Xenon gas is depleted, the thruster ceases to function. It is claimed that the EmDrive, because it does not rely on reaction mass, would work indefinitely without any fuel other than electricity. Because the reaction mass typically forms 90% or more of the total weight of a spacecraft, a thruster that did not require reaction mass would represent a fundamental breakthrough in spacecraft design and propulsion.
Source for above quote is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive).
Hi Radical,
In another post, you said you can't do experimentation.
I would suggest buying a U$3 dollars gyroscope from China (free shipping) to play with. Gyroscopes are amazing.
Your posts are always welcome. Please keep doing
your em drive sounds like lots of fun but it has a long way to go.
a better demonstration is needed be for it becomes accepted.
what about the energy calculations on a regular rocket?
are you going to dig deeper into it?
fritznien
Hi Fritznien,
Let's assume we have a rocket with total weight of 1002Kg. 2Kg are solid rocked fuel. The rocket burns 1Kg of fuel per second and each 1Kg of fuel produces 1000Newtons.
By having F=ma => a=F/m. The acceleration is approximately 1m/s2.
Assuming an universe without gravity (makes calculation simpler), after the first second, the kinetic energy is:
v=1 => E=mv2/2 = 1001*1/2 = 500.5J
Another second passes, another Kg is burnt, another 1000N are produced (fuel consumption and force produced are constant along the time) and the final kinetic energy is:
v=2 => E=1000*4/2 = 2000J. Incredible. The first 1000N created 500J, but the second 1000N created extra 1500J.
What do you think?
what i think is that you are missing half the story.
as the rocket speed increases the velocity of the reaction mass drops
with respect to the rest point. so the rocket gains more energy and
the reaction mass less. your observation is not new.
please see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect)
Hi.
I don't see why the reaction speed would slow down from 1m/s to 2m/s. So, I disagree with you. On the top of that, velocity is an observer based measurement. Doesn't make much sense any time distortion at such slow speeds.
A powered fly by has nothing to do with the example because the example doesn't involve gravity nor orbit.
Please find in the link you've provided:
QuoteRocket engines produce the same force regardless of their velocity.
Hi fritznien,
This is for you:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive)
Do you remember the following?
QuoteNo rocket can be made without fuel?
The opposite has just been proven.
Long life to over unity.