Propellantless propulsion, apparently.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Laika, Sep 8, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,374
    Farsight:

    Right. Then what's all the argument about?

    You seem to agree that the rest mass of a photon is zero. Therefore, the statement that photons have no mass ought to be uncontroversial for you.

    Or am I missing something?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Nope, didn't miss it. Lets' count the ways in which you follow the woo-woo credo:

    "Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.

    If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.

    Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.

    Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.

    When all else fails.... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.....

    Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).

    Whenever you read something on the Internet, re-post it as fact.
    Never bother to do even basic research into the matter."

    http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    No, you have a bucketload of arrogance, and very little understanding.

    But here's a few questions for you. If you understand mass, how can we counteract it's effects? IE, where's the anti-gravity mechanism? What actually causes mass to attract? Are there gravitons? For someone with all the answers like you, these should be simple questions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    I see a future in propulsion using electro-magnetic engines because electricity is easy to come by.

    Storing fuel for chemical engines is troublesome for efficiency reasons. I don't have any delusions of electricity out doing chemical by thrust. But electricity can be stored with easy. It can also be used with very highly condensible fuels (like those that can be turned into a gas or plasma) that can used with as an exciter. The end result is a weak propellant that has the ability to be fired for extraordinary amounts of time and thus outdo it's chemical counter part.

    Anyway, I have a hunch that there is a way to get allot more power out of this universe then by anything we have thought of yet. And for propulsion, a better rocket fuel would be a nice place to start.

    Getting this resolved and getting people into space would be nice. The first money making project of space can be to empty all those lines of people that gather just before a Star Wars movie. Get them off my planet!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And they can have fun while doing it too.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2007
  8. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Let's see shall we? I'm only too happy to answer your questions, and any more you'd like to ask:

    I can't tell you how to contrive an anti-gravity mechanism. LOL, but if I could, I wouldn't.

    What causes masses to attract is a local tension gradient that balances matter/energy stress. It's expressed as a change in c, but you can't measure it directly.

    No, there are no gravitons, not as "particles" flying between masses. But since gravity is related to say electromagnetism where there are photons, it's not quite correct to say there are no gravity quanta.

    BillyT: I selected the electron/positron pair to keep things simple. Sure I haven't got a "theory". But what I have got is a layman's essay and an understanding. And what simple question haven't I answered? I take great pride in my honesty and never shirk questions. But when you defend your blinkered ignorance by calling my essay crackpot I take offence.

    James: What the argument is about is whether propellantless propulsion is possible. I think it might be, because energy contributes to gravity, and by considering mass to be relativistic mass rather than rest mass we might contrive propellantless propulsion - where the momentum of an extended system is conserved, but the momentum within a given object is not.

    Q: let me know when you've got something to contribute other than insults.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2007
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    A rose is still a rose.

    When will you contribute something other than gibberish?
     
  10. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Can I reiterate that if anybody has any questions of me, I'll try to answer them to the best of my abilities. And if you think I've ducked some issue, please don't hesitate to point it out.
     
  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    So are you saying there are gravity quanta?

    Because if so, you have contradicted yourself somewhat, saying there are no gravitons, because thanks to particle wave duality, you can't have one, without the other.

    Care to clarify your position?
     
  12. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Sure.

    If we consider energy to be a volume of spatial stress, and if we consider a photon to be a somewhat localised quantum of that energy, and if we consider gravity to be a balancing tension extending out into the surrounding space, then adding one extra photon means we add one extra quantum of energy to the "system". The gravity of that system will increase by a complimentary amount. However we will not find one extra graviton in any given location.

    There's a lot of ifs in the above, but I hope it explains my thoughts adequately.
     
  13. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Cool article, thanks.

    Didn't Tesla work on this shit back in the day?
     
  14. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    What is this woo woo BS
    just one person climbing on the back of another
    Grow up all of you
    Science is fantasy, and yes you add in observations... which are interpreted by a biased mind
    and yes the whole structure of science builds, often on foundations of permafrost...

    LOL you guys have no idea about science, let alone discussion

    Discussion should be about any aspect of reality, it is not up to the proponant to fill in the gaps of their intuitive fantasy framework

    If that was so science would never be where it is today,, and the greeks might as well have never been
    No it is your job to bring in observations and correlate them in a way to debunk or at the least to show where the discrepencies lay.

    Science is full of cracks, and the way forward is to expose these cracks, not plaster them up with your stupid claims of woo-woo from a pulpit of superiour fantasy, you call established knowledge

    Guys, you call woo woo and I know who is not a scientist..... and I am sick to death of such people being in positions of moderation
    You destroy discussion, you destroy innovation and you set science into a religious dogma

    I will say it again GROW UP
     
  15. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Show us the formulae, and we will shut up.
     
  16. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    URI

    There is nothing wrong with asking for the facts. Anyone that goes too far from the real world is going to be useless to all.

    Direct your efforts at how your ideas can be made real. Not at getting rid of those that think they know better than you what is possible and what is not. You will find that this can win over anyone that challenges you as you are not fighting them. Thus it is hard for them to fight you.
     
  17. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    Expanding upon established research in the physics of particles in a magnetic field, Dr. Peck describes how a spacecraft can be made to accelerate in a direction perpendicular to a magnetic field, as do all electrostatically charged objects to some degree.

    Evidence of Lorentz forces in action appears, for example, in new images from NASA's Cassini spacecraft: the rings of Jupiter and Saturn contain dust particles whose orbits are governed by these forces. Dr. Peck proposes to exploit this natural behavior on a larger scale, allowing spacecraft to be propelled by the same principle.

    Here is how a spacecraft taking advantage of Lorentz-actuated forces would work. Spacecraft naturally acquire a charge as they travel through a planetary body's surrounding plasma, but the charge is typically not very high.

    Thus, to achieve a useful force, it must boost its charge by emitting charged particles (such as ions or electrons) via a high-energy beam. As a suitably "charged" Lorentz-enabled spacecraft orbits a planet, the planetary magnetic field naturally deflects the spacecraft's path toward a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, which also affects the spacecraft's velocity.

    It does this in much the same way as electromagnetic forces steer the electron beam in the old cathode-ray TV sets to paint the picture on a TV screen. The effect is greater near the north and south poles where the magnetic field is denser. Since planetary magnetic fields rotate with the planet, that perpendicular acceleration can lie in a direction that adds energy to the spacecraft's orbit.

    The results are remarkable: without propellant, a spacecraft can achieve new earth orbits, cancel out atmospheric drag, and establish new stable satellite formations. This means of propulsion can allow freight and passengers to be transported throughout the solar system, using planetary magnetic fields as stepping stones from planet to planet.
    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...Propulsion_Research_Under_NASA_Grant_999.html

    >> Here is how a spacecraft taking advantage of Lorentz-actuated forces would work. Spacecraft naturally acquire a charge as they travel through a planetary body's surrounding plasma, but the charge is typically not very high. Thus, to achieve a useful force, it must boost its charge by emitting charged particles (such as ions or electrons) via a high-energy beam. As a suitably "charged" Lorentz-enabled spacecraft orbits a planet, the planetary magnetic field naturally deflects the spacecraft's path toward a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, which also affects the spacecraft's velocity.

    It does this in much the same way as electromagnetic forces steer the electron beam in the old cathode-ray TV sets to paint the picture on a TV screen. The effect is greater near the north and south poles where the magnetic field is denser. Since planetary magnetic fields rotate with the planet, that perpendicular acceleration can lie in a direction that adds energy to the spacecraft's orbit. The results are remarkable: without propellant, a spacecraft can achieve new earth orbits, cancel out atmospheric drag, and establish new stable satellite formations. This means of propulsion can allow freight and passengers to be transported throughout the solar system, using planetary magnetic fields as stepping stones from planet to planet. >>

    Now there is a start... ESG theory describes it all. The quest a true space drive.

    But of course useless without a propellant-less inertial drive.
     
  18. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
  19. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    Travelling via orbits is unbelievably wasteful
    travel 10 billion km to go 100,000......

    But that is a nice picture, because in ESG theory there are slipstreams between spin systems where travel velocities will be greatly enhanced. Mapping these slipstreams would be an explorers task so they could be entered in the star maps.
    yes a type of superhighway, but not orbital dynamics.
     
  20. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    It sure is wasteful in terms of time, URI. But cheap in terms of propellant.

    What's ESG theory?

    I don't know anything about orbital dynamics or what this method is called. OK guilty your honour: slingshot was the wrong word to use.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page