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

[MarkE]

MarkE and TK has once again violated the principal of cause and effect!  They have violated the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. Newton's first law of dynamics states, "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change this state by forces impressed upon it".  In this statement, we see at once a violation of the principle of the cause and effect relationships.

Any motion is a result of a net force, but it is missing in Newton's first law; there is no mathematical model of this law, which describes its constant movement in space, but a body ignores it and moves with constant velocity V. The discrepancies being described are a cause of a violation of the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. This principle requires a description of the process or the phenomenon from its very beginning, not from the middle.


In order to return the principle of the cause and effect relationships into the former Newtonian dynamics, it is necessary to put the law of the accelerated motion of a body to the first place.  As a result, we'll get a new dynamics. In order to differentiate it from the old dynamics, Kanarev calls it "Mechanodynamics".

Gravock

Funny isn't it then that Newtonian mechanics work just fine up until we get to relativistic speeds?  You can keep preaching BS as long and in as loud a voice as you like.  If you can't find situations where your proposed ideas generate correct answers and Newtonian mechanics don't, then your ideas are in deep trouble.

[minnie]

  Nice to see some "down to earth" input from the old eucalyptus browser.
  In the end we'll probably settle on a good old spring for our oscillator.
          John.

[gravityblock]

Funny isn't it then that Newtonian mechanics work just fine up until we get to relativistic speeds?  You can keep preaching BS as long and in as loud a voice as you like.  If you can't find situations where your proposed ideas generate correct answers and Newtonian mechanics don't, then your ideas are in deep trouble.

Another false assertion by you.  Newtonian mechanics work just fine at relativistic speeds.  So, it is your ideas which are in deep trouble, and not mine.  The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c². This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c².  Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c² in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence, the equation E = mc².  In this way, c² is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc², always included the spin energy, but you apparently have never recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by the spin.  As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v². The term v² transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength.

Gravock

[MarkE]

Another false assertion by you.  Newtonian mechanics work just fine at relativistic speeds.  So, it is your ideas which are in deep trouble, and not mine.  The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c². This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c².  Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c² in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence, the equation E = mc².  In this way, c² is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc², always included the spin energy, but you apparently have never recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by the spin.  As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v². The term v² transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength.

Gravock

LOL.  That's quite the salad you've tossed.

[gravityblock]

LOL.  That's quite the salad you've tossed.

This salad was prepared from a good tree, the tree of life (truth), and is good to eat.  Why do you continue to eat from a poisonous tree, a tree of false knowledge and lies. It is you who have tossed the salad, and not me.  You should taste it before tossing it out.  However, it will probably taste bitter to you, for you have put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Gravock