/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11059411
>>/x/

>>11059411
Ready for what? A whole bunch of fucking nothing?

>>11059441
for another six months of threads

>>11059411
I've thought of an even easier design using relativistic fluid dynamics.

>>11059456
What in the fuck am I reading

>>11059464
1) Propel fluid backwards a relativistic speed
2) Return it to the front at a slower speed
3) Profit

>>11059456
The flux has to be balanced, or all the particles would accumulate in the back

>>11059478
Think about the apparent mass increase due to moving faster.

>>11059475
The mass flow rate is the same at every point

>>11059487
>i learned special relativity from skimming wikipedia btw

>>11059487
Relativistic mass was known to be bullshit 100 years ago. It's not how things work.

>>11059521
My point is that it is the same principal as OP's oscillating particle accelerator.
From the reference frame of the container, there is more momentum going backward than there is going forward.

>>11059487
You know relativistic momentum is conserved, right?

>>11059411
First, you will have to get through ME!

>>11059534
No there isn't. Learn how momentum works in relativity. Rest mass is invariant regardless of speed, and relativistic momentum is conserved. The container won't go anywhere.

>>11059538
Then there is something funny going on at the front/back where the compression/decompression happens.

>>11059543
For the record, this is why OP's invention fails too.

>1969
>NASA puts men on the moon
>1981
>NASA builds the world's first orbital spaceplane
>1986
>Spaceplane blows up
>2011
>NASA pours all it's money into a joke rocket
>2014
>NASA starts testing memedrives
>2016
>memedrive fails
>2019
>NASA makes another memedrive
What the fuck happened?

>>11059545
Like what?

>>11059411
So the massive new invention is shooting particles in one direction so that the craft can go in the opposite direction? Shit why did we never think of this.

>>11059760
in his idea, the particles never leave the craft

>>11059411
You can do this with gyroscopes.
It's called conservation of angular momentum.
When you spin a metal disk at high speed it locks it's inertia into the plane the disk is spinning.

Pick up an external hard-disk drive while it's turned on and move it around and you can observe this, the platter in the drive spins at high speed and is pretty sense so it makes a perfect gyroscope.

Anyway gyroscopes basically create a fixed inertial point of reference.

All you have to do to create a functional inertial drive is get 2 gyroscopes and orientate them in such a way that you have overall movement in a net direction.

To do this imagine a circular model train track, now cut it in half, seperate it a few track lengths and add more track so that you now have two complete half circle tracks next to each other.

These tracks are floating on a frictionless surface, say floating on something in a pool of water.

If you put a gyroscope on each model train, and have the trains move symmetrically , so along the straight section of track, then in unison around the curved outer track.

You will have net direction of movement in the opposite direction of the trains as they move along the straight track. As the gyroscope locks in the inertial frame,
Then as the twin gyroscopes move along the curved section, there is no net movement as the equal opposition forces of the gyroscope on the curved track cancel each other out.
They gyros return to the starting point and the process is repeated, with net movement in only one direction.

Inertial drive.

Watch this if you want to see all the applied physics of gyroscopes. This guy was one of the great scientists of the last century.

https://youtu.be/OpCEJxO6V9g

>>11059813
So his idea is that you generate 0 net thrust.

>>11060198
how is this relevant to this thread

>>11059411
>>>>Reactionless drive!!1!!!11
Have mass driver at planet A
Have mass driver at planet B
Is you accelerate and decelerate objects at both ends and there's a fairly large traffic between the planets going back and forth, you have reactionless drives, or rather you have the same advantage.

>>11060382
Aren't you pushing the two planets apart tho?

>>11060330
Because of this ;)
>>11060088

It's related to gyroscopes which can be used in inertial drives. This video demonstrates why.

>>11059448
kek

>>11060391
>It's related to gyroscopes
Sure.
>which can be used in inertial drives
Not really.

>>11060088
>All you have to do to create a functional inertial drive is get 2 gyroscopes and orientate them in such a way that you have overall movement in a net direction.
>all you have to do is violate the conservation of momentum lmao simple!

>>11060419
Do you have an external hardrive around somewhere? Plug it in and move it around. The inertial forces are very strong. Don't take my word for it.
Its works because of the law of conservation of angular momentum.

>>11060387
Very slowly yeah.

>>11060434
I know all about it. Unfortunately you can't use that to actually "go" anywhere.

why cant we make a rail gun engine and the recoil provides thrust, but you capture the projectile with a net to use again?

>>11060498
here is a version that could work.

the rail gun shoots a bullet providing thrust from recoil, then the bullet loops around a thing so it is facing 90 degrees.
then it is captured by a net providing more forward thrust and being captured to use again.

where do i accept my nobel prize?

>>11060530
Returning the bullet to the gun counteracts the net force and movement.
That's the problem. And hitting the net pushes the thing backwards lol.
No nobel prize for you sadly :P

>>11060559
hitting the net pushes it forwards, in the same direction as the recoil from the bullet (the spacecraft is travelling from right to left in my diagram).

also if you put oil on the end loop thing there would not be much friction (the majority of the bullets energy would be retained).

>>11060530
Hey big brain how do you accelerate the bullet around that curve?

>>11060586
solar power, or a nuclear reactor.

>>11059411
>theoretical machine may violate the laws of physics
If they haven't built it yet and all they have to predict its behavior is physics then how the fuck are they predicting it will not follow what would be predicted by the basis of their prediction?

>>11060559
What if it were spinning and the net was replaced with an arm that would scoop the bullet up from the side instead of catching it

>>11060595
>solar power, or a nuclear reactor.
juicy sweet chorizo my man you don't know physics at all.

>>11060530
So a juggling rail gun? All you do is waste energy and return the projectile to the point of origin.

>>11060573
You are right, I wasn't paying attention.

Either way the return trip of the bullet negates the thrust ;)

>>11060698
What? No it doesnt

>>11059448
lel

>>11060530
I see you have also invented a magical device that turns objects 180° without losing momentum
I'd ask for 2 Nobel prizes

>>11060855
You are shooting the bullet in one direction, then shooting the bullet the opposite direction. No net change. 0+1-1=0

>>11059498
Except the direction the mass is moving

fuck nasa

>>11059411
>and decelerated during the other.
Decelerating the particles would push the box in the other direction slowing its speed wouldn't it?

>>11059411
The comparison is all wrong. The particle accelerator would need to be rotating a continuous ring of constant density (so, more like a fusion reactor). If its just a regular particle accelerator, then it would undergo torque when you push along the cylinder hight axis.
This isn’t a paradox at all, when you keep increasing the tangental momentum, then the sum of the two momentum vectors’ direction will converge to the tangent direction, hence, the direction of the velocity vector will also converge to the tangent direction. However, the magnitude of the velocity vector will converge to the speed of light, which means the particle accelerator would lose velocity once you turn it on. This loss of velocity balances with the gain in mass, so momentum is conserved.

>>11059411
Yeah that'd work fine if you could just arbitrarily increase the mass of the ring like in the animation. Except to do so you have to apply a force to the particles which I guarantee would cancel any thrust you'd hope to achieve

>>11061183
>i dont know what mass flux is

>>11061027
now he's thinking with portals!

The only tech even remotely like this I pay any attention to is the Mach Effect drive stuff Fearn and Woodward and messing with. That could wind up being all smoke no fire, but they're at least sending devices off for 3rd party testing and working in partnership with NASA-https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission/

This monstrosity would be useless even if it did work.

>It would also need to be big – some 200 metres long and 12 metres in diameter – and powerful, requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust, which is about the same force you use to type on a keyboard.
wow it's fucking nothing. this drive would only be useful for cheapshit cargo hauling, you're basically still looking at generation ships to get anywhere meaningful

>>11060088
do you have any proof of concepts you can show for that

>>11059411
Here we go again

>>11059578
They fund a "Weird Ass Shit" lab with trivial funds, on the "Nothing is likely to come of this, but if something DOES come i=of it it might be something big" theory.

Then really bad science reporting chimes in with "NASA made this weird shit" without explaining that, and brainlets swallow it whole.

>>11059760
HA!

>>11060213
Yes. But with lots of cool hardware.

>>11060498

>>11060602

>>11062336

>>11062387
that proves nothing though

>>11062387
kek

>>11062376
Fucking gyroscopes how do they work?

>>11062366
Has anything of note EVER come out of those labs?

>>11062387
How did that toroidal current get there?