The Triangle's Puzzle

[gmbajszar]

Wait, I changed my comment above yours just when you answered. I added another question if you don't mind.

Thanks,

George

[Staffman]

What level math is this? Third grade high school?

Interesting that logically the mind assumes that on a 45 degree slope it is twice as easy to pull weight up.

I have a good similar puzzle for you, sir.


It cannot generate free energy, but what I want it to do is to move a spaceship in space.

I attached a picture below. We set up an experiment that begins with being in space in a long rocket. An astronaut throws a heavy weight downward from the top of the rocket, which then makes the rocket move upward until the weight hits the bottom of the rocket when the rocket stops moving. But for a few seconds until the weight flew from the top of the rocket to the bottom, the rocket was in motion upward.

Now, if we analyze the picture below, we use a shotgun to fire two weights downward. As the weights are fired, the rocket moves upward. But then the weights make a 180 turn, which should reverse the momentum of the moving rocket to a full stop. Only when the weights hit the top of the rocket again, I believe we generate motion for the rocket.

Question: Is this a valid theory?

George

It would be easier to just keep the barrel straight. When you fire a shotgun on a friction-less surface, ice for example, the shot leaves the barrel (quickly) and you move backward. On regular ground, your weight and friction keep you stationary.


With a curved barrel, the shot encounters the barrel wall, imparting forward momentum to the system... AS it's turning around. In other words, your cancelling your backward momentum - up to a point... If you gained forward momentum, the shot would have to be travelling faster down range than the exit velocity from the shell casing.


You only get back what is put into it. That is why it would be easier to use a straight barrel. You would be using the most momentum at the moment the shot was fired. Systems like this are 'expelled mass systems', basically rocketry. With these systems, you have to have a whole trips worth of fuel on board, be it rocket fuel or bullets in this case. This extra mass makes it exceedingly difficult (read expensive) to go into space.






One area being looked at for space travel is a real warp drive. Research Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive, then "warp drive mechanics 101". Basically it states that excluding energy between two plates creates a 'negative' energy density in space. This essentially warps space/time. As the plates get closer together, the Casimir force increases. However, as you get down to smaller scales the surfaces are no longer smooth and the effect cancels out. The math on this is brain busting, and I've yet to grasp the whole thing mathematically.


I'm glad to see you thinking... never give up!!!

[gmbajszar]

Here is a theory in the picture below that I speculated on 8 years ago. Something that I understand, but I don't think others will.
It supposedly moves a spaceship in space somehow. Thanks for your help,

George