Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)

[greendoor]

The Big Bang itself is an unproven theory. It fits in well with the Einstein view that space does not contain aether, and is therefore a vast expanse of nothing. But if space was first filled with an omnipresent aether, then matter could spontaneous appear at any point in space. Certain quantuum effects seems to suggest that electrons can disappear and then reappear in another space .. where do they go?

Imagine space is like an infinite swimming pool of water. Before the material universe as we know it was formed, it would appear as a void. But introduce some waves from several directions, and control the frequency and phase of these various waves - 'let there be light' - and it's possible to create diverse patterns and shapes and vortexes.

IMO, solid matter can spontaneously form anywhere - it does not have to travel from some distant Big Bang.

All of these theories are stalling techniques at best. Where did the Big Bang come from? It is no more likely to happen than the spontaneous appearance of matter throughout space ... it's all just a wild guess about something we have practically zero knowledge about.

Harold Aspden has a remarkable theory about the creation of planets - he considers it to largely an electrical phenomenon. His theory explains much more of the known facts than other more random theories.

[ovyyus]

The Big Bang itself is an unproven theory...

Of course, but a 'proven' theory is no longer a theory :P

Where did the Big Bang come from? It is no more likely to happen than the spontaneous appearance of matter throughout space ... it's all just a wild guess about something we have practically zero knowledge about.

Astronomers find evidence that the observable universe is expanding - the galaxies appear to be moving away from one another at a measurable rate. Wondering how and why and from where everything is moving apart seems like the beginning of fairly normal enquiry.

IMO, solid matter can spontaneously form anywhere - it does not have to travel from some distant Big Bang.

Is there evidence supporting matter spontaneously forming everywhere?

I guessing Bessler discovered some very basic truth that could be exploited with relatively simple materials and construction. Very probably he was killed by people who wish to keep the power for themselves.

Is there more evidence in support of Bessler being murdered or in support of his accidental death?

I was recently considering installing a free-energy solar hot water heater on my roof, but now I'm not so sure. How can I be certain of not being targeted for assassination by the power hungry elite?

[Michael]

Traveling faster than the speed of light in our frame of reference ie; accelerating mass is impossible; photons are the tightest most compact bunched together energetic particles there are. Existence above ( in a term of energy/pressure ) our frame of reference is possible, is real, and in those frames of reference the rules of our universe are the same rules there, hence they too have light, and gravity, and solidity, but our arrow of time from that perspective doesn't exist, and we can't measure that frame of reference because we can't observe anything faster than our speed of light.

[Jonathan]

I think the assumption that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is highly speculative

Among other things, it is assumed that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames. Then, they derive that these imply that nothing can accelerate to exceed light speed.

But I have been told that when rocket scientists do calculations about the effects of gravity between planets, they have to assume that gravity reacts instantaneously.

That's because they avoid retarded time techniques whenever they can. In general relativity, gravity is definitely conveyed at light speed.

Therefore, just like there are parts of the universe where [our] light has not reached, there are parts of the universe where [our] gravity has not reached yet?

That seems right to me.

but i'm fairly sure Einstein missed it.

We do know that he did, because it is a classical theory.

But if you believe that all mass is created out of Aether, then logically the Aether and the Earth are intrinsically intertwined, and therefore there will never be a velocity difference between Aether and Earth ... that's all they proved.

That's true, but they proved that after Bradley's experiment showed that the Earth should be moving through the aether.

[greendoor]

Interesting wiki about the Bradley experiment - but I fail to see any mention that this proves the earth must be moving through an aether. I think they explain these aberations very well:

Annual aberration is due to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
Planetary aberration is the combination of aberration and light-time correction.
Diurnal aberration is due to the rotation of the Earth about its own axis.
Secular aberration is due to the motion of the Sun and solar system relative to other stars in the galaxy.

Whether you believe in light particles traveling through an empty void, or whether you believe in light waves rippling an aether, these motions will cause the observed aberrations.

[Jonathan]

If the aether moved with the earth, then waves in distant, stationary aether that travel into the earth's local aether would get swept along with it. This deviation in the path would make the star look like it is stationary relative to the earth, which would prevent aberration.
Using the raindrop model from the website, a dragged aether would be like a tail wind that blows at the same speed that you run. This would make the rain fall vertically from your view, which is how it would look if you weren't moving and there was no wind; since the two look the same, the aberration would be zero. Since we are moving and there is aberration, there must be no tail wind, which is, that the aether must not be dragged.

[greendoor]

Got it. Good point. But I think these are still assumptions about how the earth interacts with aether. In my view, the earth is a manifestation of aether - or to put it another way, every particle of the earth is a manifestation of aether. The earth and the aether cannot be seperated, and therefore at the surface of the planet, the relative velocity between earth and aether is zero. On a planetary scale, the earth is like a vortex within the aether fluid. But I believe the viscosity of aether is much higher than we can imagine - so I don't believe there is a great whirpool of entrained aether extending out into space around the earth. I expect that where the earth meets the sky, the velocity of aether drops instantaneously from earth speed to relative zero.

I have read that the Michelson Morley experiments were done at sea level, and despite considerable room for experimental error, did suggest there was no velocity difference. However, I believe other experiments were conducted at much higher levels above sea that suggested some velocity difference.

I think we pin a lot of faith in the outcome and conclusions about certain experiments, and the integrity and agendas of the people involved. The art of war is primarily deception, and the parties that fund this sort of research aren't doing it to slice carrots.

[ruggerodk]

Dear Greendoor,

I kindly ask you to answer my posted drawings and question; "Can this be useful?"

though you've explained that (on Jan 08): "... sorry I haven't drawn anything. I'm really looking for a rational basic operating principle to explore, before I draw anything."

- I do expect a person that are capable of writing 5 long posts to explain his idea of a experimental constrution setup, (without having a rational basic operational principle) should also be capable of drawing this setup...at least as a premature sketching.

Dont be shy ;-)

regards
ruggero ;-)

[greendoor]

ruggerodk - thank you. I can draw stuff, but I don't have a webserver to post the images on. I can't find any way of attaching images to my posts other than a URL, so I gave up trying. I know there are probably free sites I can use, but I don't have the patience - there usually isn't such a thing as a free lunch, and the cost is generally my time.

The short answer - your drawing is interesting, but not really what I had in mind. I've thought about screws before, but I think you will find that friction is a big problem with this type of design.

I suspect i'm on the wrong track with my original posts ... as I said in my title - I was looking for a reactionless conversion of angular to linear motion.

Basically what I mean by this is that linear motion and angular motion are generally considered completely seperately. It's as though they are in completely seperate reference frames, and one doesn't affect the other. E.g. - if an electric motor is started up, and it isn't bolted down, the motor casing wants to spin in the opposite direction of the rotor. That's the normal equal and opposite reaction to rotary motion. Or - if that motor was placed on an ice rink, and we give it a shove while also standing on the ice - we are pushed backwards by our action of pushing on the motor. That's the normal equal and opposite reaction to linear motion.

My thinking is that IF we could divert that reaction force in another direction (e.g. angular into linear, or linear into angular) then maybe we could have effectively an action without an apparant reaction.

Maybe i'm completely wrong - but imagine a piece of metal breaking off a spinning flywheel. The piece of metal had angular velocity, but immediatley after breaking off, it would fly in a straight line with linear velocity. I believe there would be an equal and opposite reaction to the sudden loss of this mass - but that would have to be transfered back into the flywheel. So unless i'm wrong, this seems to be a conversion of angular velocity to linear velocity, without an equal and opposite linear velocity. The reaction energy is going into angular velocity, and therefore doesn't send the flywheel flying backwards - it just changes the speed of the flywheel.

So unless i'm barking mad - we have a situation that is significantly different from a rocket. With a rocket - if we eject mass in one direction, the rocket travels in the opposite direction. But if we use a rotating mass ejector, we can fire out mass without changing the direction of the rocket. (And assuming we use counter rotating flywheels to we don't send the rocket spinning on it's own axis).

Of course we don't want to lose our mass, otherwise this would be useless as a space drive. So we want the mass to be tethered to the rocket - so that once it takes up the slack, the rocket is jerked forwards, and the mass is jerked backwards. We end up with the mass back inside the rocket - and we have traveled a distance in space, without losing our mass.

Sorry - i've probably lost you all at this stage. It's clear enough to me, because i've been thinking about this basic principle for decades. IF it is possible to travel in space by rotating and throwing a mass around, this is achieving something thought impossible. By normal physics, all actions should have an equal and opposite reaction, and no matter what we do, we should never move from the same spot - unless we lose our mass. That is the whole point of rocketry - ejecting mass (and therefore finite range). If we can achieve what appears to be a reactionless drive, we could power this with solar power and travel with no limits constrained by fuel or mass supplies.

And why a Bessler forum should care? Because it seems obvious to me that if one could build a reactionless space drive that turns rotary motion into a unidirectional force, then it should be possible to use the exact same engine in reverse to convert the unidirectional force of gravity into rotary motion. Solve this, you solve the Bessler wheel - IMO.

[greendoor]

OK - sorry, just found the link for adding attachments ... maybe i will draw something next time. A picture being worth 1000 words and all ...