OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff

[MileHigh]

Schuler:

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?

You state that like it is a fact, but are you sure that it's true?

MileHigh

[schuler]

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


It's well know that kinetic energy is proportional to v². It's also known that:

Rocket 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[/size]


  Have Fun 

[schuler]

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.

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.

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. 

[schuler]

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?v=5IxExVikV90

[sparks]

   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.