It's taken long enough.
Reactionless Propulsion Said Real By NASA
Moderator: scott
re: Reactionless Propulsion Said Real By NASA
I see that the scientific establishment is slowly catching up.
It's taken long enough.
It's taken long enough.
- Attachments
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Reactionless Propulsion Said Real By NASA
His description of the paradox is a little obtuse:primemignonite wrote:Found this today regarding the FP matter:
http://www.gta.igs.net/~qbristow/Scient ... _text.html
It appears to be a serious stab (or better) at an explanation for it.
Mother Nature, We DEMAND something for nothing!!!
(Now she's shaking in her boots. I am sure of it.)
J.
- while correct, a better 'paradoxical' angle on the problem is the one i described - as this guy says, it's not really paradoxical at all that a moving conductor in a static uniform and symmetrical magnetic field should experience an induced EMF; this follows directly from Lorentz, Maxwell and Einstein etc."Those who claim this is a 'paradox' argue that since there is no change in either the magnitude or direction of the field through the measurement circuit loop, or the area of that loop, then there should be no emf induced in it"
What is more paradoxical is the deviation from expected mechanical principles - especially, the relative nature of motion: intuitively, it shouldn't matter if the conductor is rotating, or the magnet, since motion is relative. But in reality, if the conductor rotates we get an induced current, but if the permanent magnet rotates while the conductor is stationary, no current is induced. THIS is the real apparent paradox. The inequivalence of relative motion.
So if the 'textbook' definition of Faraday's paradox is the induction in a revolving conductor, the greater paradox is the non-appearance of that same result when the magnet revolves instead.
If rotating the conductor above a stationary magnet induces a current, then likewise, logically, rotating the magnet below a stationary conductor should nonetheless still cause a current, the same as before. Yet this doesn't happen - the magnetic field DOES NOT rotate with the magnet. That's the real paradox.
Bristow's not wrong - it might be surprising to the initiate that moving a conductor through a static uniform field induces current, because we more commonly encounter induction as an effect of a changing field. But as he correctly points out, all that is required is motion of a conductor through a field. And as he makes clear, that's not actually paradoxical. Surprising, perhaps, but fully consistent with the laws of induction.
The real humdinger is the absence of induction when the magnet rotates, since we naturally assume the field should rotate with the magnet it's ostensibly emanating from, thus effecting the same condition as when the conductor rotates.
So call it the paradox of Faraday's paradox, if you like.. if you search YouTube for Faraday's paradox you'll get lots of amateur demonstrations, but the best by far is this one from Steorn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPUii-lwbFU
Again, it's not the appearance of induction when a conductor rotates in a uniform field that has any obvious bearing on the vacuum's contribution, but rather its non-appearance when the magnet rotates.
On this point you'll find many more demos on YouTube - one of the better ones being this contribution from Harvey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWO7O5hvzWE
Or this one from scotty7129:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8
.. although here he's not showing the absence of induction, but merely the absence of induced torque - a different angle on the same underlying issue, of the field not rotating with the magnet.
The broader point to take away from all this is that the same principle applies for other fields - ie. gravity isn't a property of masses, but rather mass's effect upon spacetime and the vacuum (notwithstanding the current no-show of a graviton or other testable quantum gravity theory). The strong nuclear force isn't a property of protons or neutrons, rather the gluons mediating it are a property of the vacuum. All force carrier particles - the gauge bosons - are quantum vacuum fluctuations.
re: Reactionless Propulsion Said Real By NASA
When you rotate the magnet you are operating a servomechanism, just like when you rotate the steering wheel of a heavy lorry.
Without this servo assistance you wouldn't be able to turn the magnet at all.
Try rotating a box with a set of 6 orthogonal locked gyros.
The same consideration applies to linear inertia.
When you give something a linear acceleration the strain you impart is a control deformation which operates an internal gyro system to drive the object forward.
Mass (inertia) is not the amount of stuff in a body but a property of motion. Masses are not dead stuff. They are very much alive.This is why mass increases as one get towards light speed. The gyro effect becomes all used up.
I pointed this out on overunity.com a long time ago.
Of course, nobody believed me then - and I don't suppose they will now. :-)
Without this servo assistance you wouldn't be able to turn the magnet at all.
Try rotating a box with a set of 6 orthogonal locked gyros.
The same consideration applies to linear inertia.
When you give something a linear acceleration the strain you impart is a control deformation which operates an internal gyro system to drive the object forward.
Mass (inertia) is not the amount of stuff in a body but a property of motion. Masses are not dead stuff. They are very much alive.This is why mass increases as one get towards light speed. The gyro effect becomes all used up.
I pointed this out on overunity.com a long time ago.
Of course, nobody believed me then - and I don't suppose they will now. :-)
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Reactionless Propulsion Said Real By NASA
Since primemignonite has raise the interesting subject of an ‘Impossible’ space drive' which is very relevant to the 'Impossible Bessler Wheel' I thought I'd bump this thread by enlarging my previous post on the subject of inertia and mass.
Mass (inertia) is a property of matter, not matter itself. If you speed up a body its mass (inertia) increases but the amount of stuff, the number of atoms and nuclei doesn't increase.
Also consider rotation. If you fill a black box with running gyros then by fixing them or allowing them to be free within gimbals you can make enormous changes to the rotational inertia. If you didn't know what was inside the box and thought of it as a inert lump you would think that its "mass" had changed.
I first realized mass was a property of motion, not of substance when working as a government scientific officer on materials research.
I wrote:
"Increase in the speed of an inertial body relative to its environment (characterized by an environmental speed) is accompanied by a transformation of the internal velocity, v, into an external velocity u. In other words the external kinetic energy is derived from the internal kinetic energy, or in simpler hierarchical terms, external motion is derived from internal motion. Clearly this is a more mundane and intelligible explanation with the change in inertia with increasing speed than that normally given, an explanation moreover that is fully in accordance with the behaviour of a substance at a higher scale as exemplified by the kinetic theory of heat.
In effect inertial substances are seen as active, not passive; as containing servo-mechanisms, force amplifiers. The energy put into accelerating a body is merely a control energy which is proportional to, but at non-relativistic speeds, a minute fraction of the total energy needed to overcome inertial effects. As the speed of the body reaches speeds comparable with the characteristic field speed the servo-mechanisms become less and less effective until at the speed of light all the energy has to be applied from external sources."
I realise it is very difficult for people to believe that when they push against an object to accelerate it, they are only doing the equivalent of turning their steering wheel (in a modern car) but nature has evidently developed servo-mechanisms long before we thought of them. Not surprising really is it?
The way one can be deceived by internal servos can easily be demonstrated in the case of rotational inertia by filling a black box with free running gyros in gimbals. If the gimbals are free then it is easy to rotate the box. Lock the gimbals and the rotational inertia (mass if you didn't understand what mass really is and didn't know what was going on) increases enormously.
Likewise, any decent engineer could devise a railway waggon where if you pushed against it with a force of 1 pound, release of gyro energy would drive the wheels with a force of 1000 pounds.
The human pusher would be deceived into thinking that the mass of the carriage was far less than in reality since he would judge the mass from the acceleration produced by the force he applied. He would not realise that the energy he was putting in was merely a control energy which was being multiplied a thousand times by the machinery inside the waggon.
One of the overunity forum members (spinner - a lurking member of this forum) asked me to explain how this human pusher could achieve such an amplification of his force.
I answered - at length:
"You cover the inner side of the wagon walls with strain gauges. Remember this isn't meant to be a practical blueprint but an explanation of principle.
The strain gauges pick up the amount of pressure and the length of time that pressure is applied.
This information is transmitted to a controller which instructs the flywheels/gyros to power the wagon wheels by the appropriate amount. So the wagon accelerates. When the person takes his hand away the acceleration stops and the wagon carries on rolling forward at the speed it reached at the end of the push, the end of the acceleration. It would seem to the man pushing as though he had accelerated the wagon cos the machinery inside is so well made that there in no vibration and no sound.
If the man continues to push the wagon to higher and higher speeds approaching that of light then the internal gyros will eventually become polarised and it will seem to the man that the inertia (which he interprets as mass) of the wagon was increasing. In fact it will merely be the efficiency of the servos which is decreasing."
Now this works for a wagon because one can transmit forces through the wheels to the track.
But how about a body in outer space? That manifests the same inertia. Surely, it has nothing for its internal gyros to grip on.
Mmmmmm......
Yes it has. It grips on the same thing that electromagnetic waves grip on. The very dense aether that is supposed not to exist. Sound waves require a atmosphere full of stuff. EM waves require an atmosphere much fuller of stuff - much, much, much fuller of stuff. The Victorians knew it. We refuse to think about it cos science has been usurped by mathematical physicists as Prof. Omnibus points out correctly, vigorously and at length. It's time engineers manned the barricades and took it back. And I predict that is shortly going to happen.
Increase in the speed of an inertial body relative to its environment (characterized by an environmental speed) is accompanied by a transformation of the internal velocity, v, into an external velocity u. In other words the external kinetic energy is derived from the internal kinetic energy, or in simpler hierarchical terms, external motion is derived from internal motion. Clearly this is a more mundane and intelligible explanation of change in inertia with increasing speed than that normally given, an explanation moreover that is fully in accordance with the behaviour of a substance at a higher scales as exemplified by the kinetic theory of heat.
In effect inertial substances are seen as active, not passive; as containing servo-mechanisms, force amplifiers. The energy put into accelerating a body is merely a control energy which is proportional to, but at non-relativistic speeds, a minute fraction of the total energy needed to overcome inertial effects. As the speed of the body reaches speeds comparable with the characteristic field speed the servo-mechanisms become less and less effective until at the speed of light all the energy has to be applied from external sources.
Mass (inertia) is a property of matter, not matter itself. If you speed up a body its mass (inertia) increases but the amount of stuff, the number of atoms and nuclei doesn't increase.
Also consider rotation. If you fill a black box with running gyros then by fixing them or allowing them to be free within gimbals you can make enormous changes to the rotational inertia. If you didn't know what was inside the box and thought of it as a inert lump you would think that its "mass" had changed.
I first realized mass was a property of motion, not of substance when working as a government scientific officer on materials research.
I wrote:
"Increase in the speed of an inertial body relative to its environment (characterized by an environmental speed) is accompanied by a transformation of the internal velocity, v, into an external velocity u. In other words the external kinetic energy is derived from the internal kinetic energy, or in simpler hierarchical terms, external motion is derived from internal motion. Clearly this is a more mundane and intelligible explanation with the change in inertia with increasing speed than that normally given, an explanation moreover that is fully in accordance with the behaviour of a substance at a higher scale as exemplified by the kinetic theory of heat.
In effect inertial substances are seen as active, not passive; as containing servo-mechanisms, force amplifiers. The energy put into accelerating a body is merely a control energy which is proportional to, but at non-relativistic speeds, a minute fraction of the total energy needed to overcome inertial effects. As the speed of the body reaches speeds comparable with the characteristic field speed the servo-mechanisms become less and less effective until at the speed of light all the energy has to be applied from external sources."
I realise it is very difficult for people to believe that when they push against an object to accelerate it, they are only doing the equivalent of turning their steering wheel (in a modern car) but nature has evidently developed servo-mechanisms long before we thought of them. Not surprising really is it?
The way one can be deceived by internal servos can easily be demonstrated in the case of rotational inertia by filling a black box with free running gyros in gimbals. If the gimbals are free then it is easy to rotate the box. Lock the gimbals and the rotational inertia (mass if you didn't understand what mass really is and didn't know what was going on) increases enormously.
Likewise, any decent engineer could devise a railway waggon where if you pushed against it with a force of 1 pound, release of gyro energy would drive the wheels with a force of 1000 pounds.
The human pusher would be deceived into thinking that the mass of the carriage was far less than in reality since he would judge the mass from the acceleration produced by the force he applied. He would not realise that the energy he was putting in was merely a control energy which was being multiplied a thousand times by the machinery inside the waggon.
One of the overunity forum members (spinner - a lurking member of this forum) asked me to explain how this human pusher could achieve such an amplification of his force.
I answered - at length:
"You cover the inner side of the wagon walls with strain gauges. Remember this isn't meant to be a practical blueprint but an explanation of principle.
The strain gauges pick up the amount of pressure and the length of time that pressure is applied.
This information is transmitted to a controller which instructs the flywheels/gyros to power the wagon wheels by the appropriate amount. So the wagon accelerates. When the person takes his hand away the acceleration stops and the wagon carries on rolling forward at the speed it reached at the end of the push, the end of the acceleration. It would seem to the man pushing as though he had accelerated the wagon cos the machinery inside is so well made that there in no vibration and no sound.
If the man continues to push the wagon to higher and higher speeds approaching that of light then the internal gyros will eventually become polarised and it will seem to the man that the inertia (which he interprets as mass) of the wagon was increasing. In fact it will merely be the efficiency of the servos which is decreasing."
Now this works for a wagon because one can transmit forces through the wheels to the track.
But how about a body in outer space? That manifests the same inertia. Surely, it has nothing for its internal gyros to grip on.
Mmmmmm......
Yes it has. It grips on the same thing that electromagnetic waves grip on. The very dense aether that is supposed not to exist. Sound waves require a atmosphere full of stuff. EM waves require an atmosphere much fuller of stuff - much, much, much fuller of stuff. The Victorians knew it. We refuse to think about it cos science has been usurped by mathematical physicists as Prof. Omnibus points out correctly, vigorously and at length. It's time engineers manned the barricades and took it back. And I predict that is shortly going to happen.
Increase in the speed of an inertial body relative to its environment (characterized by an environmental speed) is accompanied by a transformation of the internal velocity, v, into an external velocity u. In other words the external kinetic energy is derived from the internal kinetic energy, or in simpler hierarchical terms, external motion is derived from internal motion. Clearly this is a more mundane and intelligible explanation of change in inertia with increasing speed than that normally given, an explanation moreover that is fully in accordance with the behaviour of a substance at a higher scales as exemplified by the kinetic theory of heat.
In effect inertial substances are seen as active, not passive; as containing servo-mechanisms, force amplifiers. The energy put into accelerating a body is merely a control energy which is proportional to, but at non-relativistic speeds, a minute fraction of the total energy needed to overcome inertial effects. As the speed of the body reaches speeds comparable with the characteristic field speed the servo-mechanisms become less and less effective until at the speed of light all the energy has to be applied from external sources.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?