My question: Does your theory have any mechanism to 'change' the gravitational acceleration of a uniformly gravitating body other than in the 'shadow' cone between this body and another body? In other words, does a body such as the Earth gravitate uniformly EXCEPT within the 'shadow cone' between the Earth and the moon, if only those two bodies are considered and both are presumed to be of homogeneous density? ” -------------------------------------------------------------------- your reply: "I think I understand your question. I believe you are asking if the earth were alone in the universe would it have uniform gravitational field around it assuming a homogenous composition. If so the answer is yes. The shadow to the moon produces tidal forces on the earth and moon, both of which have uniform gravity except in the shadow which becomes a directed force between them causing them to apear to attract but they are actually being pushed together by the fact the the flux in the shadow has been attenuated by each body. So there is less force pushing them apart than is pushing them together." ==================================================== As I understand your response, you are stating there would be an attenuated area within the shadow (cone) producing similar effects as gravity. There would be no change in measured 'gravitation effect' on the opposite side of the Earth because that area does not lie within the 'shadow cone', correct? Edit: tried to clarify
Let me take you back to my claim. Even with a descreasing energy efficiency which is compatible with the mass math of SRT, travel faster than the speed of light is still impossible. The efficiency would approach 0 as velocity approaches the speed of light. SRTists say mass increases. You say it is energy transfer efficiency. If the math is correct, regardless of interpretation, either mass will increase toward infinity as the velocity approaches c or the energy transfer efficiency will descrease to 0 as the velocity approaches the speed of light. All an atomic clock does is absorb energy, vibrate, and emit energy. At greater velocities it does this less frequently. Your view on energy transfer efficiency explains this, if you use γ to modify it. What can I say? I don't use Force in my math. I don't think in terms of Force. I don't use the term when describing things. And, I doubt such a thing exists in nature. Don't stress over it. I don't care if I am wrong or not. I'll just cut off any further debate on the issue off. You are right until I put the math to paper. I don't plan on doing that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is no difference in the relative velocities of the parts of an atomic clock either, but yet the rate at which it absorbs energy, vibrates, and emits energy changes with velocity. So, again I ask you what is the difference between the clock and your rocket.
To MacM: I think I owe you an apology so here it is, with a few word of explanation: I am a little dyslexic and because of this if I miss read something, get an idea in my head, I can look at the words again and not really see them, but “read” what I previously understood. You consistently and clearly stated the wind was orthogonal to the SAIL but I had misread this, as the wind is orthogonal (to the boat) and continued to do so. It was after 2AM (for me) when our rapid exchange stopped and I was tired. You could have cleared up my misreading by point out more directly that you were assuming the wind was orthogonal to the sail. I think you are probably correct; certainly, you are when the boat has a spinnaker (that big full sail out in front of the boat with a pole holding one corner away from the boat) set. Because then (“running with the wind”) the boat’s speed subtracts form the wind speed to make the wind speed on the sail (relative to the sail) and this difference is always less than the wind speed. When you are between “close haled” and a “broad reach”, I think you are still correct, but I am not sure that there is no position of the boat -wind -sail in which the boat cannot go faster than the wind. Clearly as I keep saying when the wind is 90 degrees to the boat’s path thru the water, you often are going faster than the wind, almost always if the boat is “plaining” as even displacement boats can do in a strong wind. Because the wind is curved, especially on boats with a jib (smaller sail with front corner hooked to front point of boat) that I now realize has as part of its function to bend the wind over the main sail better as well as to catch some wind there may be a configuration where the boat, with sail perpendicular to the distant wind direction, is going faster than the wind’s ground speed, even if the wind speed direction is perpendicular to the sail. That is the vector addition that I keep speaking of will have the wind on the sail with significantly higher speed than the wind’s speed. I think it depends on how much you can “bend the wind.” (When one boat suceeds in overtaking another up wind of it, it "steals the down wind boat's wind" - that down wind boat's sails also bend this "pre-bent wind". I am pretty sure that the down wind boat can sail faster than the distant wind, but admit is some sense it is not really with sail perpendicular to the wind it is given, only wrt to the more distant wind.) Most sail boats have several “tattle tails” (little pieces of string tied to guy wires that indicate the local wind direction) I have never actually measured how much they differ in direction than say the flag on a house on a point of land you are sailing by, but think it can easily be 30degrees - I e. you have bent the wind locally 30 degrees. Thus even though the sail is 90degrees to the distant wind direction it is only 60 degrees locally. Perhaps this bending is enough for the boat with sail 90 degrees to the distant wind to go faster than the distant wind because the vector sum of wind speed and boat speed is larger than wind speed in this case. Now I want to note that I never called you ignorant (as you protested in your red posts). What I said in my unsolicited advice was not to “expose you ignorance about sail boats and momentum wheels” Maybe you are a little dyslexic also? There is world of difference between telling that one is ignorant in some area and calling them ignorant (in general). I would never do the latter to you. Quite the converse, at least half a dozen times in different posts I have stated that I think you very intelligent. My favorite way to put this is: “you are the smartest crackpot I know.” and I might add: a lot smarter than some who do call you ignorant. Again I apologize for not having read exactly what you said.
two additional comments: 1) It is hard to be "off topic" if I am disputing one of your claims (at least not as I read the title to this thread.) 2) in addition to stating "wind orthogonal to sail" you also said:
I have no objection to centrifugal force being considered and have not claimed it should be disregarded. There seems to be several explanations for the various tides. However, my post was in response for it having been said my explanation was "Nonsense". It is not nonsense and it is one of the many various explanations for the moon side tide being higher. Yes gravity is stronger on the moon side but it is also correct to point out that gravity can move something sideways 32.2 times as easy as it can move it up against earth's gravity and that is inpart at least why the moon side tides are higher. Gravity pulls water from the sides of the earth toward the center line between the moon and earth and does so with greater ease than merely lifiting it straight up directly under the moon. That is why you see the language say "Piles up" not merely lifted up.
MacM: Interesting. Not only are you anti-Einstein, you're also anti-Newton. Is there any accepted physics you believe in? I don't dispute that you can make a device which exerts cyclical forces when on a rail bed or a spring scale. Such a device operates through contact forces. It would not propel itself in space, though. But you understood the term, didn't you? Looks like Webster has some catching up to do. which means it can't work in free space.
Not entirely true in either case but more so in Einstien's. And yes I believe in my own experience with tests and common sense and change whatever does not fit, to fit what is observed, regardless of the source of the flawed concept. BTW: The correct term for what you think is being done is called "Vibratory Locamotion". These devices (when correctly designed) are not based on vibratory locamotion but directed thrust. Simply false. You are making statements without doing any math. I have not only built the devices but have done the math when designing them. What do you not understand about F=ma being 90 degrees displaced from Cf = mv^2/r when applied to the movement of mass in a rotating system, do you not understand it does not fit Newton's equal action and reaction criteria? It is really simple and I think you might actually be able to do it if you simply tried and stopped balking because you have been told Newton said it can't work. Of course Newton said nothing about rotating systems in that regard. F=ma results in torque on the rotating system the counteraction to that torque is equal and opposite thrust on the frame. But that is 90 degrees displaced from the centrifugal force being created. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! smarty. Or James R. See above. Which means you are talking rhetoric and not physics. See above. BTW: This short class only applies to one of my original units and the Sandia equivelent design which they have made public. I have improved on that substantially but you nor this forum have any need to know - Yet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
MacM: There are so many problems with this that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, a centripetal force must be caused by a real force of some kind, and that force must have an equal and opposite force acting on some other object. Newton's third law has no exemption for centripetal forces. You don't seem to appreciate the difference between force and torque, either. You talk about directions of torques and compare them to directions of forces, as if they are the same thing. But the torque due to a particular force is always directed at right angles to the force. Your device cannot work in free space, and if your maths says it can your maths is wrong.
You might start by identifying the only problem. I have and it is your comprehension of physics. If you are infact a physicist as you claim to be then you surely are familiar with the terms "Symmetry" and "Breaking Symmetry" and understand the unique and important consequences of breaking symmetry. The problem here is you are ignorant about the subject of breaking symmetry at a macroscopic scale and as a consequence you see all such systems as being symmetrical and hence only capable of vibratory locamotion; in which case you would be right in that such systems cannot move themselves in absence of some contact friction with some other larger and immovable body. Rather than debate with you regarding rhetoric I will give some simple examples of where your BS is just that BS. Perhaps if Newton didn't make an exemption to rotary systems then he fucked up. Ever consider that? More BS rhetoric and personal slander. Example: Set your ass in a wheel chair on a flat, smooth hard surface. Take a bat and attach a 10 pound weight to the tip. Extend the bat to the side and then try to swing the bat. You create torque at your torso. That torque causes the bat to move in a quasi rotary fashion accelerating the weight. The torque you apply produces F=ma and accelerates the weight. The counter reaction to that F is F applied to the wheel chair and the reaction is the chair moves (accelerates) in the opposite direction of the moving weight. Now clearly is this simplified case the torque attempts to also rotate the wheelchair in the opposite direction of the rotation of the bat. Of course a smart fellow can see that if I also swing a second bat from the opposite side of the chair at the same time in the same fashion all torque on the chair is eliminated and the chair gets a double push backwards in a straight line. In this case each weight generates a centrifugal force orthogonal to the chairs motion but are equal and opposite in vector and cancel. So all that is left is the backward motion of the chair. Now I know and I know (or believe) that you know that to move those weights back to their starting position would reverse the affect on the chair and I have produced a symmetrical system that produces nothing more than vibratory motion. However, here is where your class in physics stops since I damn well will not tell you how to break that symmetry. I give this scenario for the sole purpose of making it clear your assertion about what I know or understand about forces, etc., is outright bullshit slander. No "YOUR" device will not work in space. Mine and Sandia's does. But mine is even better than Sandia's. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW: The wheel chair will only move down the rail in this case if you put sprague clutches on the wheels. My unit had no sprague clutches and rolled on bearings and moved both up and down the rail freely on its own and would pull 10 - 12 pounds steady force on a spring scale attached to the frame and rail. So the bottom line here is you don't know what the f___ you are talking about and are merely spouting rhetoric.
MacM: Why don't you give the word "rhetoric" a rest for a while? You over-use it. For you, rhetoric is just anything you don't agree with (like proper physics). Do you doubt that I am actually a physicist? Seriously? Or is that just "rhetoric"? I understand symmetry and symmetry breaking. It's irrelevant here. Yes. The bat-chair system starts with zero linear and angular momentum. You give the bat some angular momentum, and the chair rotates in the opposite direction. The total angular momentum remains zero, and there is no linear momentum either. Yes. In that case, the net angular momentum is zero at all times. The linear momentum of the bats, as you swing them, it away from you. To conserve total momentum, the chair moves backwards. The total momentum of chair+bats is zero, still. When you stop swinging the bats, the chair stops moving, too. The only way you can keep the chair moving is if you toss the bats away completely, which is the same principle by which a rocket works. Yes, as long as you continue to hold the bats. That's because it can't be done.
No. That is not correct. The attenuation between the bodies results in there being pushed together. However the flux density in that cone projected out into surrounding space is also less having first penetrated both bodies. You would have one level of gravity potential around the earth and around the moon; except for the regions encompassed within the projected cones and in those regions there is and increased gravity potential in that these zones have been boubly attenuated vs one body attenuation outside the concial region. If a third body were to fall into line within the cone it feels (is being pushed) toward both bodies with its mass (attenuation) of the already attenuated field in the cone.
So far you are correct. Again you are correct. But to claim that prohibits v= > c is a misapplication of what you just described. In the case of an inertial system (rocket) having it's thrust generated on board there is never any relative velocity between the driving energy and the rocket load. Hence no change in mass and no decrease in energy transfer efficiency. Almost correct. It turns out that there is another way of looking at what is occuring and achieve the same curve without using gamma but simple math. It is called UniKEF. What can "I" say. You don't do a lot of math if you never calculate forces. Ask yourself what velocity is the atomic clock responding to? Is it really relative veloicty to another observer? Or is it velocity due to acceleration (hences applied forces) where in such case only the clock dilates since any observer has no such force or change in energy. That would mean that only the clock that "Actually" moves (the one having accelerated) dilates and observers that were ar rest before it accelerated do not dilate. That predicts that there is no reciprocity as advocated by SRT (and as never having been observed, nor emperically demonstrated). Further it means velocity must be in response to something other than multiple remote observers. You can call it what ever you choose but it is the absolute frame. If we have no observers and are all alone in the universe, are you going to tell me I cannot fire a rocket and accelerate and feel that acceleration? Am I in motion or not. Do I have velocity or not? The answers are "Yes" and "Yes". Meaning that true velocity is only relative to some initial or prior inertial point (frame), not other observers. I fail to see what this has to do with the rocket and FTL?
Not a problem. Apology accepted and I'm just glad it was a misunderstanding and not deliberate on your part. Also understand that I have repeatedly agreed with you that under certain conditions boats can and do run faster than the driving wind but I deliberately prohibited that (or thought I had) in my scenario. Also I thought I had made it clear that I understand the term "Ignorant" and it is not "technically" a derogatory term, although many use it with that intended meaning. I was objecting to your assertion that I was ignorant to the physics of boats and wind; which I am not. I am ignorant as to sailing techniques and terms however. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It was off topic in that I thought I had made it clear I was speaking only of an orthogonal sail and no plaining of the boat. See above.
There's no proof you've done what you claim, MacM, and since it is a physical impossibility, there can't be any.
I have better things to do than argue with you about this. I've made my point. I've demonstrated your claims about my knowledge was false and I tell you that you are wrong in your claim about impossibility. Your assertion that vibratory locamotion can create pull on spring scale is valid but the device was not using vibratory locamotion. The fact that you do not know how to build such a device does not make it impossible. It isn't I can assure you. I'm re-contacting Sandia to see if I can get another copy of the technical sheet and I'll post the facts as soon as I get them. Then you can apologize for your continued mis-information you are putting out here.
Actually this is unwarranted sarchasim. I would certainly not anticipate any such event. However, I will not hesitate to note that I certainly will do so long before yourself in that you lack vision and have damaged your opportunity by blind faith to relativity. I end this tit for tat with this note to readers. See this [post=861282]Post[/post]
I don't expect a Nobel prize, MacM. I don't claim to be doing revolutionary work (at least, not right now). You do, though. If an ounce of what you say turns out to be right, you'll be a prime candidate. Of course, it could just be an overblown ego.
