|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 April 2024 15:15
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Nitro |
| Subject: |
light speed and lack of acceleration by gyro drive |
| Question: |
I have decided that the latter part of this has important implications for those struggling to construct a gyro inertial propulsion machine and indeed for those just trying to get their heads around the subject, so I am putting this up as a new topic.
As I am bogged down with the nightmare of building an extension in the busy season and have stalled in remaking the “fast repeater” an excursion at a tangent into the other lunacy, of light, is a welcome change.
Sandy, I agree with you that Einstein, while a clever fellow, went into the realms of fantasy with the postulate that the mass of an object will become infinite at light speed. I think it was the neatness of the equation he’d figured out and the ill thought out Michelson Morley light speed experiments searching for an “aether” way back in 1887 that caused his error just as Newton’s too neat equations and his lack of knowledge of gyroscopes caused his errors.
There is a temptation amongst mathematicians (hello Dave) to extrapolate nice neat equations beyond the realms where they can work (see global warming predictions by the Met. office idiots when they cannot even get the weekend weather right etc.). Newton's equations are undoubtedly brilliant but they don’t work fully with the rotation of a rotating mass or indeed with subatomic particles (which is where Einstein came in to supersede Newton’s teaching) and Einstein’s extremes of his equations near the speed of light don’t make sense. Tachyons and other subatomics exceed light speed and black holes accelerate light towards them at a speed greater than light so that none escapes which would, on its own, seem to sod up the speed limit set by Einstein’s postulate.
Examine what Einstein’s equations give as a reason “Einstein’s speed limit” cannot be reached let alone exceeded and it doesn’t seem to make sense and, as Judge Judy says; “If it doesn’t make sense it isn’t true!”. This inability to get close to Einstein’s light speed limit is said to be because; as a device gets closer to the Einstein speed limit the equations indicate its mass increases towards the infinite and therefore a thrust beyond the infinite would be needed to achieve any further increase in speed. If, assuming for a moment that Einstein’s equations are correct about a change of mass occurring, and that that change of mass applies to a mass ACCELERATING ITSELF (e.g. rocket or gyro machine), as opposed to a mass BEING ACCELERATED by outside means (e.g. particle being accelerated in Cerne), the rocket fuel mass (assuming a rocket for this point, though a rocket’s use is unlikely) and its expulsion mass would also increase toward the infinite thereby eliminating the problem – though no doubt creating a few more! The same thing would occur if gyro propulsion were used; the mass and therefore gyrodynamic mass displacement would increase toward the infinite, proportional to its increase in mass caused by approaching light speed.
Sadly while unopposed (strictly, “mostly unopposed”) mass displacement is possible, gyro acceleration is not possible as I now outline below.
I am still of the opinion after more recent tests, though I wish it weren’t so, that even my genius device will be, just like the you tube video of the curved path “MacPhail’s pendulum”, of little practical use beyond confirming the existence of anomalies in Newton’s laws.
The process required for gyro impulse propulsion is really quite simple, though the mechanics (as the “hands on” amongst you already know) have proved a proper sod.
To give an analogue of the process that may be easier to understand:- If you took a stone with you on a sledge and threw the stone away from the back of the sledge, the sledge would, of course, move in the opposite direction at a speed proportional to the relative weights of the stone to the sledge and you and to the amount of accelerating force you applied to the stone. Assuming no friction or other influences, the stone and sledge would travel apart at a constant speed, dependant on the above mentioned factors, forever. All so far so good and so Newtonian.
However, if the stone is attached to a string having no elasticity, attached to the sledge, the stone and sledge will travel apart to the extent of the string and stop.
A gyro machine (or at least mine) is like the above set up with string but with one important difference; the gyro mechanism effectively enables the stone to be retrieved for another throw without the stone’s return causing the sledge to react to the stone’s return and go back to its start position. Thus the gyro machine moves like an inch worm – making a movement of a set distance, stopping, resetting, then making another movement of a set distance etc., etc. This movement and stop, movement and stop can, of course, be smoothed by multiple gyros and a large smoothing mass but this will not produce a constant acceleration as the dead stop after each movement prevents the movement becoming the incremental movement which is constant acceleration. This, like the machine’s mechanics, is a proper sod and weep-worthy after having come so far. Luckily I have a good stock of Famous Grouse so I shall spend the weekend reverting to my “Isle of Mull” therapy by replacing the pain of a “successful failure” with the pain of a successful hangover!
The problem of gyro propulsion is now solved but the solution (or at least the one I have found) will not produce the constant acceleration that was hoped for – unless, of course, one of you knows something I have overlooked???!!!
Happy weekend Gyronauts
NM |
| Date: |
26 July 2015
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/07/2015 02:35:15
| | | Hello Nitro & Sandy,
I have for a great while had my own model of the speed limit imposed by light upon itself and imposed on everything else and I will share this in my next post. I would be foolish to claim it is correct, but it does answer the logic missing in the gravity model.
As to constant acceleration I am building that now. It is only a mechanical postulation of possibilities. Yours is of impossibility, which by the way I concurred with for a large number of years. This unfinished invention is based on a theory, the outcome of which is proven, but certainly not the invention itself. I believe very strongly in it, or I would not devote a whole summer trying to build it especially with so much aggravation at solving or trying to solve unusual problems. I am sure there are lots of other people who would be more suited for this. Sometimes I think about giving it to them, all the knowledge.
You say unless you missed something. We all missed a lot. We were misled too and we mislead ourselves. I am profoundly sorry I cannot as yet share much with you. You need not believe me, but I could ask you a single question that would set everyone on the right track. So much to do with so little, but the question took me a half lifetime and a theory to come by. I just thought to add my two cents.
By the way, there have been some brilliant thoughts expressed on here just lately by you and Sandy as well, very much so.
I will do light packets latter and the speed limit . . . . I wonder if I have any of it correct.
Good evening,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/07/2015 03:22:36
| | | What am I saying?
Thrust has already been proven to my satisfaction.
There are just other ways.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 08/08/2015 13:20:52
| | | Good morning Nitro et al
The hard core Shed dwellers here have all made a physical model of some form or another which moves C of G by internal means. Kreisel Präzessions Antrieb video of Laithwaite’s patented device is an example. See it here http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nstIIZZadAM. If you are among this Elite band, then you have proved by experimentation that there is no basis for C of M. These Constant Velocity devices are not the end of the road Nitro, there is another level of complexity to be exploited. Accelerated thrust is possible, as my asymmetric pendulum demonstrates.
The point about no Conservation of momentum is that two of the three symmetries, translation and position, derived from Conservation laws, are no longer symmetrical. Time is a bit trickier, it may be shown to be irreversible, which is a form of asymmetry too I suppose.
Regarding Speed of light as a limiting factor; as you say, an inertial device establishes its own frame of reference. Communication outside that frame will be a problem; speed does affect time as can be demonstrated by Sat. Nav. technology. Infinite mass is bit of a précis of the original. For starters what is mass? As an object is accelerated the energy is absorbed as kinetic energy. It has to be stored somehow and increasing mass is a convenient peg to hang the idea upon. I proposed a thought experiment in “Where does the energy go” post id=2825 which has some relevance.
A final thought. As one approaches the speed of light implies that speed is increased. What happens when speed is reduced? As one approaches the lower limit what happens.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/08/2015 18:30:02
| | | "Professor Einstein was a bit smarter than we be," to quote a person even less smart than I be.
His speed limit has been tested many times and never failed. You too can prove it too in your shop. It is easy enough.
What you are all writing about and do not know it is E=MC squared.
E is on one side : Mass is on the other side. C squared, is the ratio of how much. When you increase either E or M you increase the other. If you pull a spring apart in your shop and you can figure how to weight it. You will find it is heaver when stretched than not stretched. When you stretch it you pump energy into it. It will weigh more because of the extra energy. You do not have to understand this. Just do the experiment. When you weigh the elements separately that make up gun power and then combine them the result will weigh more than its individual parts that went into it, because it has gained energy. Weigh your gyroscope wheel before you spin it up and then again as it is spinning. The extra weight you find will be because you have added extra mass by pumping the energy of angular momentum into it
Infinite mass: If a mass could approach the speed of light the momentum it carried would be a universe size large amount, (and like your stretched spring) the extra energy would multiply mass (not size, or shape, but compacted mass) and it would be endlessly compacted -- rather like the beginning of the big bang, if the bang is true.
Happy highballs.
"Well it's Saturday night and I just got paid
A fool about my money don't try to save
My heart says go, go have a time
'Cause it's Saturday night babe and I'm feelin' fine
Little Richard
Glenn,.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/08/2015 18:30:31
| | | "Professor Einstein was a bit smarter than we be," to quote a person even less smart than I be.
His speed limit has been tested many times and never failed. You too can prove it too in your shop. It is easy enough.
What you are all writing about and do not know it is E=MC squared.
E is on one side : Mass is on the other side. C squared, is the ratio of how much. When you increase either E or M you increase the other. If you pull a spring apart in your shop and you can figure how to weight it. You will find it is heaver when stretched than not stretched. When you stretch it you pump energy into it. It will weigh more because of the extra energy. You do not have to understand this. Just do the experiment. When you weigh the elements separately that make up gun power and then combine them the result will weigh more than its individual parts that went into it, because it has gained energy. Weigh your gyroscope wheel before you spin it up and then again as it is spinning. The extra weight you find will be because you have added extra mass by pumping the energy of angular momentum into it
Infinite mass: If a mass could approach the speed of light the momentum it carried would be a universe size large amount, (and like your stretched spring) the extra energy would multiply mass (not size, or shape, but compacted mass) and it would be endlessly compacted -- rather like the beginning of the big bang, if the bang is true.
Happy highballs.
"Well it's Saturday night and I just got paid
A fool about my money don't try to save
My heart says go, go have a time
'Cause it's Saturday night babe and I'm feelin' fine
Little Richard
Glenn,.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/08/2015 18:30:32
| | | "Professor Einstein was a bit smarter than we be," to quote a person even less smart than I be.
His speed limit has been tested many times and never failed. You too can prove it too in your shop. It is easy enough.
What you are all writing about and do not know it is E=MC squared.
E is on one side : Mass is on the other side. C squared, is the ratio of how much. When you increase either E or M you increase the other. If you pull a spring apart in your shop and you can figure how to weight it. You will find it is heaver when stretched than not stretched. When you stretch it you pump energy into it. It will weigh more because of the extra energy. You do not have to understand this. Just do the experiment. When you weigh the elements separately that make up gun power and then combine them the result will weigh more than its individual parts that went into it, because it has gained energy. Weigh your gyroscope wheel before you spin it up and then again as it is spinning. The extra weight you find will be because you have added extra mass by pumping the energy of angular momentum into it
Infinite mass: If a mass could approach the speed of light the momentum it carried would be a universe size large amount, (and like your stretched spring) the extra energy would multiply mass (not size, or shape, but compacted mass) and it would be endlessly compacted -- rather like the beginning of the big bang, if the bang is true.
Happy highballs.
"Well it's Saturday night and I just got paid
A fool about my money don't try to save
My heart says go, go have a time
'Cause it's Saturday night babe and I'm feelin' fine
Little Richard
Glenn,.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 08/08/2015 22:01:26
| | | Good evening Momentus et al,
Who is this Al guy , any ways?
Glad you agree with me that the Kreisel Prazessions Antrieb video shows a genuine example of the repeated movement of mass without the expected opposite reaction.
Laithwaite did eventually get to a working machine but it is sad it was made so near the end of his life and also sad that it has taken someone else to construct a (very simple and elegant) version of the machine that so well demonstrates what Laithwaite was trying to say. While this machine uses gravity for its precession stroke and a motorised rack and pinion for its Newtonian stroke, Laithwaite originally went public with a (now) little known forced precession device with a vertical axis. He was shown with it on television news at the time and I was utterly heartbroken as I had made a machine that was almost identical. I later noticed that his machine lacked an important feature of mine that prevents the first gyro reaction stroke being totally cancelled by its second gyro reaction return stroke – these two right angled gyro strokes are the equivalent to the Newtonian linear reactions that are equal and opposite and are so well known. At first I was selfishly delighted that I had been earlier and cleverer than a great engineer. I was then horrified when I realised that Laithwaite had, very publically, put his reputation and career on the line with a device that I knew couldn’t work as he described. I put all gyro work to the far back of the burners for a long time after Laithwaites career was wrecked – what was the point of trying to advance science if a great innovator and educator like Eric could be spat on by The Royal Society and destroyed by the establishment, what chance for a shed dweller getting his views across?
Prior to Laithwaite, after much shed work and many machines relegated to the oddments bin to be recycled and reincarnated when the “force” drew me back again to the shed the fast repeater was eventually born (a forced precession machine, because forced precession means you don’t have to wait around for gravity to reset the machine for the next stroke – like in the Kreisel Prazessions Antrieb machine) . I believe the fast repeater video has been totally lost due to the then cost of VHS tapes forcing “unimportant ones” to be rerecorded over. However I recently got a device that managed to recover some of a later Hi-8 tape of a less than perfect version of the earlier “fast repeater”. The reason it was “less than perfect” was that in an attempt to save on unproductive weight I’d tried to use the two drive strokes to mechanically change the gyros axial angle between strokes (the original successfully used heavy servos to do this). The video shows the gyrodynamic stroke with breaks and noise bars – just the crappy type of video you would expect from a charlatan trying to flog you some worthless shares or proclaim his genius (Yeah! Like you guys are going to believe that!). Thankfully it is the difficult gyrodynamic stroke that I have managed to recover and the more understood Newtonian stroke that I have not recovered.
I am editing out the eye bending noise bars, and my wandering waffle, as much as possible while conserving as much of the Hi-8, high resolution, video (well it was high res. for the first year). To think that I was smart enough to avoid Betamax and eight track tapes!
I will put this video up on Jogglevision on YouTube soon for your amusement and information. If you can figure out a path to constant acceleration from it please let me know
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/08/2015 17:40:29
| | | Thomas Welch, will you contact me? ehawkins32@comcast.net
Dear Nitro,
This post has has some useful information to the point of the subject you introduced, because some of us here are questioning the mass increase at light speed.
Conditions of the speed limit of the universe is proven. What you are all writing about and do not know it is E=MC squared. E is on one side : Mass is on the other side. C squared, is the ratio of how much. When you increase either E or M you increase the other. If you pull a spring apart in your shop and you can figure how to weight it. You will find it is heaver when stretched than not stretched. When you stretch it you pump energy into it. It will weigh more because of the extra energy. You do not have to understand this. Just do the experiment. When you weigh the elements separately that make up gun power and then combine them the result will weigh more than its individual parts that went into it, because it has gained energy. Weigh your gyroscope wheel before you spin it up and then again as it is spinning. The extra weight you find will be because you have added extra mass by pumping the energy of angular momentum into it
Infinite mass: If a mass could approach the speed of light the momentum it carried would be a universe size large amount, (and like your stretched spring) the extra energy would multiply mass (not size, or shape, but compacted mass) and it would be endlessly compacted -- rather like the beginning of the big bang, if the bang is true.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 11/08/2015 10:40:33
| | | TO:- Glen Hawkins
Do you really think that you are the only person on the forum who does know E=MC squared?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 11/08/2015 10:45:00
| | | Dear Glen Hawkins,
Thanks for the patronising help with what we “ do not know”. I think I know (though I may have misunderstood) that:- The equivalence of energy E and mass m is reliant on the speed of light c.
“When you increase either E or M you increase the other.”
If “the other” is c does that mean that if I increase the energy input to anything, the speed of light will increase? This would explain why, when I put my foot down, as I near traffic lights they always shift towards red.
There can be few who do not know “the” Einstein equation and been taught its implications - even I have! Newton's equations are now known to have shortcomings – and not just in the area of this link’s subject of gyros – that is why an update by Einstein overtook Newton to better explain the observations of the atomic era. Just like Newton’s observations needing revision for the atomic age, Einstein's observations can be guaranteed to need revision sooner or later to better fit some overlooked anomaly. Einstein and Newton were great men but not infallible gods. They, like many mathematicians, believed that a single equation can explain everything, even things outside its range. Einstein himself wasted most of his later life on his unified theory, trying to prove that life, the universe and everything could be boiled down to a single simple sum – he failed so to do. I have not blindly given obedience to the great god Newton and I do not intend to fanatically follow the gospel word of Einstein, unexamined, either.
You say that potential energy, in the case of the stretched spring or spun gyro, adds weight? You also say that the potential energy of gunpowder, regained by combustion, also adds weight? Oh! Dear! Where do these wild ideas come from? Oh! Yes, of course; from blindly following too far stretched mathematical extension.
Combustion only seems to add (tiny amounts of) mass because the combustible material has combined with oxygen in the air (or been provided with oxygen by one of the chemicals with the combustible material). If the combustion of a material in air takes place in a closed vessel there is absolutely no change in weight as the oxygen that has combined with the combustible material and added (minutely) to its weight, has been lost to the air in the vessel so, though oxygen has changed places from the air to the combusted material, no overall measurable weight change occurs.
I’m scared to go in my shed now, as I left a gyro running on a stretched spring and, if the gyro has stopped, it may have lost its weight, shot up through the ceiling and out through the roof! It won’t have done that, of course – nor will it gain measurable weight when spun.
You would have to put in a huge 25kWatt/hrs worth of energy to increase its weight by 1 Microgram and it would be pretty hard to weigh it then, as you would have to sweep up all its tiny remaining bits created when its molecular bond let go, long before it had absorbed a tiniest fraction of that 25kWatt/hrs.
Also, I don’t know anyone who has scales sensitive enough to measure a microgram or know how to put 25kWatt/hrs into a gyro without destroying my shed so I won’t take up your suggestion to weigh my gyro when stationary and then again when spun up.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/08/2015 20:12:31
| | | Dear Momentus,
Forgive me, but perhaps you misunderstand the point. The equation explains that if you increase energy, the increased energy increases mass. My explanation was to prove that the density of mass increases corresponding to the increase of velocity. Increasing velocity increases momentum. That is to say, momentum increases energy. Energy increases mass. The point of all this was to clarify against popular and very wrong believes and writings on here that there was no light speed and that mass as we know it should not increase, or increase toward infinity as mass would reach light speed.
But the equation reckons otherwise, and you can do tests at home prove the equation is true.
So Momentus, there never would have been these controversies written here if the equation had been fully understood, because to understand it is to be able to test and prove it.
Now then Monentus, to clarify your question ‘Do I think I am the only one here who knows’; in rhetorical vain let me ask you in view of what has been written of the light speed subject in this thread, do you think everyone knew?
You are a teacher, right? You recognize the value of a critique and correction using logic and proof. You were just pulling my leg, right?
Thank you for the question,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/08/2015 17:30:08
| | | Dear Nitro,
What I actually think of you is that you are a pretty clever fellow and a nice person. You are very welcome for the patronizing if you liked it, but I rather think you are pulling my leg. In any case, I did not mean to seem that way. Pardon me.
“If “the other” is c does that mean that if I increase the energy input to anything, the speed of light will increase?”
No banana this time I am afraid. Increasing energy increases mass, not speed. And light cannot go faster than light.
“This would explain why, when I put my foot down, as I near traffic lights they always shift towards red.”
I love it!
Nitro, to know the equation does not mean one can use the equation. We have this thread to prove that.
“Combustion only seems to add (tiny amounts of)”
I am regretful you got on the other buss my gentle friend. I did not mention combustion. It has not to do with any statements I made.
“I’m scared to go in my shed now, as I left a gyro running on a stretched spring and, if the gyro has stopped, it may have lost its weight, shot up through the ceiling and out through the roof!”
Dear guileless, sweet and inoffensive man, energy dose not multiply itself. It is an addition. You pour a bucket in, that’s all you get when you come back the next day.
“. . .nor will it gain measurable weight when spun . . . so I won’t take up your suggestion to weigh my gyro when stationary and then again when spun up.”
Perhaps you will find enjoyment in this site below, though Igor effectively dismisses your argument.
ГИРОСКОП ПОТЕРЯ ВЕСА КРУШЕНИЕ МИФОВ Антигравитация Anti-Gravity Wheel Gyroscope ИГОРЬ БЕЛЕЦКИЙ
Do not worry yourself further with these things. They will only confound you and after all, Igor has done the weighing for you. You can always count on a Russian when you don't want one, can't you?
I will leave everyone with the most absorbing information presented anywhere. If you watch anything, watch this. Nitro, there are some people who believe he knows more than even you.
“The Inexplicable Universe” hosted by Neal deGrasse Tyson. He is such a charming fellow too.
Have a happy day,
Glenny, everybody's friendney
Hay, I know you like me, Nitro. You can’t fool me. : )
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 12/08/2015 23:22:22
| | | Evening all,
I shall leave Einstein and Newton alone rather than get involved in the argument.
However it would never have mattered to me if either of them had ever existed.
The only affect it has had on me is what the brainwashing has done to my progress.
When I first got involved in this crazy venture the idea of an “Inchworm” type of drive never entered my head. It was only after several months participating on this forum circa 2004 did I realise what others were aiming to do.
Initially I believed that vertical thrust could be generated in a continuous manner but this was because of a serious error in physics found at the very beginning of my quest had led me to that conclusion.
Several machines and many experiments later I became convinced that continuous inertial thrust could not be as far as I could see, and at this time, be generated by the use of gyroscopes or flywheels.
I did very early on discover that contrary to statements made by others on this site it is the dynamic action of the gyroscope or flywheel which creates the thrust.
It is the rising and falling of the gyroscope or flywheel which creates the differential.
I found out again early on, that the gyroscopes or flywheels had to move of their own accord and not be placed by mechanical means at an elevated or lowered plane of rotation.
This must be accommodated for, without the necessity of invoking gyroscope or flywheel floating a la precession or alternatively rising in a mechanically accelerated system in saturation.
There is no angular momentum there in either case (in any case) to play with.
The deed can and must be carried out outside of precession or saturation with a bit of suitable design and a little bit of spatial aptitude.
It took me a long time to find this all out, but there you are.
My devices all work on this principle the dynamic action very similar to a swimming jellyfish.
Getting to the point.
In the end it became obvious to me that when suitably produced, the output would be directly proportional to the cyclic frequency of the pulse and reset mechanism.
In most systems I made up over the years the best I could produce amounted to one or two pulses per hub rotation or machine rotation.
However some considerable time ago in a fit of madness I devised a method of producing these pulses at upwards of 50 complete cycles per hub or device rotation, which would make a tremendous difference.
I had a machine working on this principle built many years ago and it was very expensive, and certainly not a task to be taken on lightly but it did exactly what it was designed to do, and produced good fat pulses.
At 50 cycles per hub rotation this is probably not the upper limit of cyclic differential generation.
Unfortunately I did not know enough to be able modify the pulses to finish the job at that time.
About a couple of weeks ago I was dabbling with some spare bits and pieces (I have a large stock of obsolete or useless bits from many previous devices) when an idea came to me.
I could make a device for a fraction of the cost, and at a fraction of the weight of the original device if I did a bit of design modification, and incorporate some of my unused spares.
It is very nearly complete and looking very crisp in its silver paint finish, though probably not what “Hawkwind” had in mind I’m sure.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 12/08/2015 23:45:20
| | | The latest data from the superduper telescopes in orbit say that c is not a constant.
One of the handlers of the scope pointed it at a deep distant empty patch of our universe and discovered galaxies that were exhibiting velocities greater than c. Such occurrence clearly discredits Einstein's equations. Which is wrong; the theory or the observations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaELad94KZs
The math and the concordant theories of physics demand that the observations be interpreted to mean that faster than light speeds are a reality. Because these objects are galaxies, we are stuck with the fact that it is a natural phenomena. e=mc(squared) falls by the wayside as does the mass increase equations
The only way the science pro's can hang onto their theories is to postulate that they are some sort of massive warp drives of some sort of massive extra-terrestrial civilization. Grasping at straws!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/08/2015 02:02:10
| | | I wrote a reply, Sandy. Do you dare me to post it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 13/08/2015 19:20:02
| | | He's getting real, real, comfy under your kilt.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 13/08/2015 22:29:36
| | | Whatever turns you on Glenn.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/08/2015 01:08:48
| | | Sandy,
I think I will not. There is pointless spite sometimes here and actually among very nice people; people a man would enjoy as neighbors. We know about one another's children, I learned about brambles and black cows, outrunner brushless motors and the remnants of mid evil masonry. Why would I spoil all that good will and knowledge? Besides, you have the new half-wit on here to play with whenever you have a bad day.
Good evening,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 14/08/2015 10:16:46
| | | Hi Nitro
“If you can figure out a path to constant acceleration from it please let me know”
I do not think that a fast repeater can be reconfigured to give constant acceleration. I can however send you details of the asymmetric pendulum. From which you may be able to reverse engineer your own device.
The secret is as you have so often said the “equal and opposite what”. Dark Motion uses standard Newton Dynamics to calculate the motion of a single particle under a single force. I demonstrate the theory with a two ball pendulum.
My email is brian@morris.tc, drop me a line if you are interested.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 14/08/2015 21:44:34
| | | Definitely politics; but he left out kissing babies.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/08/2015 22:59:17
| | | David, you don't even know what is going on between two people. How could you not comprehend the clear and simple implication and nature of what you read? Lost in a smoke cloud, hay? lol This would be fun if you were a little bit smarter. Igor is attempting to attack people of normal intelligence. lol.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick allan hill - 15/10/2015 01:37:13
| | | Please reply in ink to my front door,
But to the fact that at and must mostly of itself give all to show a rift of anomalies,
For discussion of why? The throwbks are so near start point..and of each do the math
As between just as in combustion engines ,, .. New patterns to be found inrepulsive
Magnetically are not far from the old ways just that bit smarter
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick allan hill - 15/10/2015 01:54:13
| | | Also
Read your blogs,forums,from end to start,forward is only made by looking at your pastthen it all makes sence or nonequivical constribed sence to an offence
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
