Animal magnetism.
2 Likes
Animal magnetism? Like, a goldfish sticking to a fridge?
2 Likes
Hereâs a way to test it that would eliminate many sources of possible interference. Put it on a cubesat with some solar panels and a DC-DC voltage booster. Even if you can only run it once every time you circle the planet, you will be able to measure tiny thrusts through the effects they have over a long time and huge distance.
Reading Heidi Fearns article âRecent Results of an Investigation of Mach Effect Thrustersâ is very informative. Basically she explains that due to the fact that gravity has some propogation delay (the basis of gravity waves, non-validated but widely incorporated) if you accelerate an object very quickly relative to many other objects in the universe you can then add energy to the gravitational field connecting between your object and the rest of the gravitational bodies in the universe. It does not require free energy, it does not violate conservation of momentum.
It sounds to me like they are simply proposing a way to convert energy directly from electrical form to gravitational potential form. They are electrically shifting the center of mass of the whole system relative to the rest of the gravitational bodies in the universe, and doing it repeatedly.
The idea is theoretically believable, and should be explored.
Yes, I am the creator of the video, inventor of the artifact and the rest, sorry
I did not make that clear but did not expect to get in a conversation (but very
glad I did).
About force F(A), it is created by the collision of individual air molecules against the air brake, so it is really a combination of BILLIONS of tiny forces taping against the flapâs surface, for each and every one of those collisions there is a (tiny) force in approximately the +X direction (depending on the angle the molecule was traveling at the moment of collision), and each one of those collisions creates an equal and opposite force that results in ejecting the air molecule in an approximate âX direction.
We can see that up to this instant there are absolutely no conflicts with Newtonâs laws (for every force there has been an equal and opposite force).
We can assume that although the billions of teeny forces that press against the air brake in slightly different vector directions they will tend to average in the +X direction (hence F(A)).
Now let us try to visualize what happens to each individual molecule that was hurled in an approximate âX direction, each acting as an individual will no doubt collide with many a molecule, and in every collision nether of the molecules retains any memory of a pervious vector direction therefore there the longer they travel the more their vector direction randomize.
Great article!
However, you donât need the Mach effect to generate reactionless thrust.
See: How To Build A Flying Saucer by T. B. Pawlicki, Prentice Hall, 1981.
1 Like
I have that book! However, as with with every other self-help book I own, I have not yet got around to building a flying saucer. (Never seem to find the time, you know how it is, etcâŚ)
2 Likes
This is manifestly untrue. Historians have to piece together a complicated set of clues, and can sometimes never have the completeness of knowledge that comes with other disciplines just because the evidence does not exist. But thatâs âeasierâ than contributing to the sciences? How? On what planet? At least in the sciences, understanding a problem doesnât require you look for a particular document written long ago thatâs been half-eaten by decay. I learned a great deal about law, and one thing I learned about it was that law is a complicated beast. Itâs not just about keeping track of precedent and synthesizing persuasive argument, as most laypeople understand it. Law is often tangled in the inter-connective tissue of culture, regulation, reputation, and a host of other factors that must be weighed and re-weighed. The next great social crisis in America, mark my words, is going to be the lack of talented, intelligent, and compassionate people in the legal field. Those people are leaving it in droves. If you think that wonât affect innovation, just remember that patent law in this country is a total mess.
This is putting aside the fact that a term like âdifficultyâ is inherently subjective. Look, I was raised in Arab culture as much as I was in American culture. Math does not carry the same reputation for difficulty in the Arab world as it does in the United States. Why? Who knows? It could be because people have a sense of ethnic pride with regards to medieval Arab mathematicians. Or, it could just be because the arts are relatively (and regrettably) devalued. My father and most of his siblings are engineers, or trained to be engineers at some point. I really wish I had the evidence handy for this, but I think youâll agree it makes a ton of sense: More math and science earlier on in the education process gets students used to thinking in mathematical and scientific terms. Math isnât a language, but thereâs something to be said for attaining fluency. One of the reasons people find the humanities more accessible is because the fundamental and critical skill for understanding the humanities, reading comprehension, is an everyday activity.
I think your personal bias is showing. I think youâre interpreting what Iâm saying as being derogatory towards mathematical modeling and theory. Go back and read it, itâs not. That was, as you said, your difficulty. I, on the other hand, love pure and unapplied mathematics. I always felt that calculus I and II were far easier to get into and far easier to enjoy than the physics classes I was taking alongside them. I actually donât feel that mathematics at the higher levels should be taught with a heavy bias towards application, because there are a lot of people in the room who are going to be mathematicians.
Instead, consider this: The way we teach the sciences has not changed in centuries. Iâm not even necessarily advocating a particular approach, but I do think the emphasis on evaluation of students based on drilled and timed exercises is completely unnecessary. In what way does that reflect what science is? It doesnât. You receive knowledge from on high, and you apply it in a completely theoretical framework: That resembles philosophy more closely than it does science.
Iâm not saying that itâs the cure for all that ails us, but I think that students should have more exposure and assignments using scientific literature earlier on. I think that students should not be tested so heavily on timed mathematical exercises and should instead be evaluated on their grasp on the mathematics and theory in a way that isnât skewed so much towards making people who donât fat-finger their calculators âbetter students.â As it stands now, if you have two students who calculate voltage from resistance and current, and one gets a voltage of 3.1V and the other gets 3.2, because one made a rounding error in the heat of the moment- then the one who got the ârightâ answer gets a manifestly better grade. This example is an exaggeration, but while this kind of rounding error may matter in a personâs career, one thing good teachers know is that pedagogy and practice are two different things. I think that students need to evaluated on their core understanding in a matter that skews very heavily away from technical exactness. I think that students will inevitably develop the skills of precision, accuracy, and application under time-pressure as they continue in the discipline.
Honestly, I think the best way to split this difference is to assign final papers instead of final exams. Itâs harder to grade, but Iâve never been very sympathetic to educators who object to educating being more difficult. This gives students an opportunity to demonstrate and apply their knowledge in a scientifically and even mathematically rigorous way, but isnât heavily biased towards time-pressure. It also engages the students to think about problems in interesting ways. So I suppose this is the question to which I want a real answer: Are students really worse-served by something like this, instead of a timed two or three hour exam? Why?
3 Likes
This is your hand-waving, and has no basis in fact.
Every collision between two atoms must maintain momentum. We can decompose momentum into 3 vectors: x, y and z. The momentum in each of these three vectors must be maintained. This means that the momentum before the collision of two atoms in the X direction (as youâve been calling, towards the end of the cylinder) must be the same after the collision as before it.
You cannot wave your hands and say that somehow this momentum gets turned around in some other direction. It doesnât work like that. So the momentum of the object in the X direction must be transformed into the momentum of the air in that direction.
It doesnât matter that there are billions of collisions, each collision must obey conservation of momentum.
(PS: This is honestly what I do for a living. I make 2D and 3D molecular simulations. Conservation of momentum in atomic systems is my bread and butter.)
1 Like
As far as I understand this article, it would seem to me that a Woodward thruster would merely move an object in space instead of accelarating it. Not really useful for a long journey as it would require a constant use of fuel of any kind to get somewhere. But for not too large maneuvers this would seem to be a real improvement.
1 Like
For station keeping it may beat the reaction wheels and perhaps even the gyroscopes. If it works and can be made all solid-state, with piezo actuators, we can get rid of bearings that are the bane of space tech.
3 Likes
Look, I get it, we all expect that no matter how many collisions gas molecules have the sum (average?) momentum will remain the same, howeverâŚ
Since 2004 I have had the curiosity if a fan excretes the same force on an opposite wall regardless of the distance to said opposite wall.
Why did I bother? I had the idea that if we have a large cylinder in space, and inside the cylinder there is a mass (letâs just say 100k) floating inside.
Both the cylinder and the mass are traveling in space at the same velocity so to an external observer the mass is floating inside the cylinder.
The mass has a motor propeller assemble that can be turned on and off on command.
Now suppose the we turn on the propeller for sufficient time so that the mass gains an acceleration of 1m/s (relative to the cylinder), the mass will travel until it collides with the cylinderâs inner wall, now it does not matter how much time the mass had to travel (depending on the length of the cylinder) if it is traveling at 1m/s it will excerpt the same force on the wall.
The air blown by the propellers will generate a force on the opposite side of the cylinder, but the question is, will the force always be the same regardless of the distance it travels? (This is illustrated in http://www.wjetech.cl/nf.htm
Also on the page are description and video of a few DIY experiments, I not expect the videos presented on that page as âproofâ of the idea but as a mean to illustrate what we are taking about.
(the videos are jerky because they were taken with a Nikon at 3.3 f/s, we are getting a high speed video camera to film a series of experiment more like http://www.wjetech.cl/e/
In other words we are capable of making closed systems accelerate greatly in the described manner, but are at lost to offer serious explanation.
(sorry if grumpy, sleepy)
Bless you guys for trying. Pushing against the universe? Motion without momentum? Iâd make a terrible physicist, it seems.
So go on without me, Iâm apparently stuck forever at the âif a Mexican jumping bean has nothing to push against, does it still moveâ level of not getting it.
peterk contributed: âI think the lone object in a universe would have to be the the most fundamental type of subatomic particle which could not be broken down into smaller particles.â
Would the question of mass be different if such a lone subatomic particle possessed only rotational velocity?
rotation relative to what?
1 Like
Unless I am mistaken, rotation is the only motion that is not relative to an external reference⌠well, other than time, of course.
Which leads to another question⌠Does âMachâs Principleâ imply that a universe must have multiple objects in motion relative to each other for time to exist within that universe?
1 Like
Sounds like the âsealed truckload of live birds on a rickety bridgeâ problem.
It all sounds a lot like Maxwellâs Demon - a trick around normally understood conservation laws that turned out to be a fail (due to energy/information loss during the -reset- stage).
The time to develop this could be so long that Woodward patent will be expired. But it would also be financially unattractive for any investment. So this kind of development occurs in the academy and gets picked up when mature. Think about Nasa: who would put any money on commercial space exploration in the 60âs? Now, jump to 2014 and there are several commercial investments.
Ok, this discussion is getting a bit out of hand. I think we are not talking about the same stuff again. What I was trying to point out is that theoretical frameworks are backbone of science and that people who aim to do any sort of scientific research simply must be educated in a way to be able to understand underlying theoretical basis. In other words you have a better chance of contributing to physics research if you had a proper formal education.
Also, I just now realized that you are probably using word science in the way it is now colloquially used in US, which excludes humanities. I am from Europe, over here history is referred to as science. The same statement goes, you have a better chance of contributing to research in history if you had proper formal education.
Now in your last post you make a big switch in discussion. You go from criticizing the content of courses and the way how this content is presented to students to discussing exams and grading system, i.e. the way how the work of students is evaluated. Although they are a part of the same process, these are two quite different things. Furthermore, you discuss only one particular evaluation method, employed by education system in US. There are many more approaches to this in other parts of the world. None of them is perfect. We could discuss this at length but keep in mind that this was not what I was defending in the first place. If fact Iâll probably agree with you about many shortcomings of existing evaluation systems.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
