/sci/ - Science & Math

Need also aid and suggestions what to do next if it passes your logic circuits and is still a valid model to bend the laws of frictionless travel.

>>9761290

How do you stop?

Here is the /b/ thread for this topic: >>>/b/769404594

Ideally /sci/ should tear this proposition to pieces, or accept it, and /b/ should trust /sci/'s feedback and, if all logic circuits are go, magic magic it into our civilization.

>>9761300
The opposite direction of travel should be the way to slow and stop.

Early estimates that do not even stress the proposed system can easily reach 5G on 1/5 of the time, which would translate to 1G sustained, which means leaving our solar system in a week or less...

And we were just aiming at propulsionless space travel at snail pace, anything that bests our current laser setups... and instead...

>>9761290

>>9761335
I wish that was that stupid, I have been trying to dismiss this for a few days now, but,,,

>>9761340
It really is that stupid.
For starters, there's no net forward force, at best they would just pull themselves together.

This is not breaking the laws of physics or conservation of momentum. This works exactly because momentum is conserved, and transformed and used in synchronized oscillations of inertial objects.

>>9761353
The forward movement and force are because when pulling the wire between the objects in centrifuge, their movement in the -X direction is much less than their same movement in the +X when they are closer together, because when they are far apart, while the force that pulls object 3 to the desired direction, they are pulled towards each other more than counter that force, but that force does not last, and their stance of staying apart is meant to be temporary also.

>>9761362
No, you see the problem is that there is no NET forward force.

May I hope for a bit more open mind in analyzing this? Physics forums are much closed minded in general, but 4chan was never like that.
Skepticism is healthy, but we are skeptic of this also, of the kind that it is hard to believe it ourselves, but objects in centrifugal spin would move far less if pulled with the same force and duration when they are centrifuging than when they are close together as one, and we can change how far they are, which makes it a model of producing net force in one desired direction... it checks out in my logic, and should in yours too, if we are pulling at strings/wires that are flexible rather than rigid.

>>9761371
The NET force would be from the inertia the whole system gains as centrifuging objects are pulled in one direction and moving less in that direction than the pull and movement on the opposite direction while they are close together. We can get them close together, pull them.

The issue would be:
Do objects in centrifugal stance, connected by flexible wires rather than rigid bridges, and pulled through that wire, move more/less/identical to the same objects when they are not centrifuging...?

>>9761372
>May I hope for a bit more open mind in analyzing this?
Newtonian mechanics has been proven (Noether's theorem) to not allow shit like this. That means that you're doing it wrong and made a mistake somewhere. No amount of open mind will change a mathematical proof.

>>9761290

The devil is hidden in this sentence:

"but these are active objects that will synchronize their pulling as needed to guide the forces to not balance out"

the only way to keep the forces from balancing out and keep the whole thing moving forward is if objects 1 and 2 apply a net forward thrust; i.e. propulsion.

otherwise object 3 is just going to slingshot back and forth and nothing is going to move anywhere

>>9761403
What if that is not the only way?
What if objects 1&2, that were meant to balance out in the slingshot back and forth without going anywhere, as you said, instead move less in one direction for the same force when they are spread wide in centrifuge, and move more when they are closer together acting as single object?
Momentum/force/energy gathered by gyroscopes, and redirected so that the total movement is not neutral.

This is where I see the mismatch between common sense and conservation of momentum.

>>9761290
The blog does not provide the EXACT details of how objects 1 and 2 "synchronize" their movement.

Therefore, I cannot provide any EXACT explanation why this will not work other than state that it breaks the laws of momentum conservation

if you give me a SPECIFIC and DETAILED account of EXACTLY how objects 1 and 2 apply their thrusters, I can explain to you EXACTLY why it won't work

See, this is the problem when people who don't grasp fundamental science try to come up with ideas like this... they either intentionally or unintentionally leave things just vague enough to make it seem like it MIGHT work, but, as always, when you get down to the nitty gritty you run into the same old fundamental problems.

>>9761411
>What if that is not the only way?
You're asking how physics would work if physics didn't work.

>>9761413
Objects are human-made objects, computers, gyroscopes, solar pannels, wi-fi. That is how they synchronize with each other and keep balances or break balances.

>>9761411

>What if that is not the only way?

It is the only way. unless you can provide explicit quantitative details about the operation other than just saying "move less in one direction" etc. then we are done here.

Before you say I'm close minded, I put forth that it is up to you to provide the evidence here. If you present the explicit details of the idea instead of all this vague shit, and I can't find any fault with it, I'll turn on a dime and drop all my other research and devote my time to this, because finding a violation of fundamental physics is nobel prize material.

But until you provide explicit details I'm gonna have to say that it's all a crock of shit.

>>9761414
This is why of this post and thread, because the proposed idea does not break conservation of momentum yet produces net movement, or should, and if you are up for it, we can coop a bit and set up the precise distances and forces and objectives, to be disproved, or proved right... is it worth the risk for your time and attention? To break this theory, if successful, or to be the first to prove it, if you are wrong.

>>9761417
I AM ASKING YOU TO TELL ME HOW MUCH THRUST AND IN WHICH DIRECTION THE THRUST IS APPLIED AND EXACTLY WHEN THIS HAPPENS

not throw around bunch of fucking words and act like that's a principle of operation

>>9761419

>is it worth the risk for your time and attention?

at this point, no.

not anymore than asking me to go outside and look for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

>>9761419
This anon >>9761403 already gave you the answer. Either your magic balls don't provide forward thrust leaving you with a weird and useless pendulum, or thry do provide forward thrust and you could do away with this complex construction. That's the end of it.

Any other argument will boil down to "you can't do this" - "but what if you could?" - "you can't" - "but what if you could?" - ... ad nauseam.

>>9761418
10 km wire between objects 1&2 for first stage of the operation. Object 3 pulls at the middle of that wire. Object3's mass would be as objects 1&2 combined when at rest, for ease of calculations. If we wish for a 1G acceleration of object 3 towards the wire, and we wish for the wire to be tight within let's say 2 degrees, what force should objects 1&2 be pulling at each other to keep that force?
Let me try draw something to illustrate.

>>9761432

>>9761432
Setting the origin also at where object 3 was at the initial stage, and that would be the frame of reference to measure net movement, if there is any.

>>9761450

I see equal and opposite forces. This means no net forward force. We are done here.

Please use this as an opportunity to open up a physics textbook.

>>9761450
OP, can you see why what is happening in these two pictures is the exact same thing?

>>9761450
>>9761441

>>9761459
I see net forces applied on different objects, one is on object 3, which moves, as it is applied directly, the other is the connection point between objects 1&2, which moves but is pulled back as it is a wire that we consider massless for the purposes here. Objects 1&2 do not move according to the force on their middle wire, they move according to the force in their combined wire and tension, which would make them move towards each other and a bit in the -X direction.

>>9761450
>>9761290
The total inertia of the mass 1 and 2 should be greater that that of the mass 3 in order for the mass 3 to start moving in the direccion +x without the other two starting to move in the direction -x , if the inertia of mass 1 and 2 is sinilar to that of mass 3 the tree masses would just move towards a central point because the net force is null, so it doesnt work.
Plus, even if it worked, where do you get materials strong enough to withstand the forces envolved?

>>9761450
the 1-2 ball system is can be treated exactly like a single "effective" ball with a reduced mass located at the center of mass of the two ball system. lets call this the "1-2" ball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_mass

increasing the angular momentum of ball 1 and 2 will never move the location of the "1-2" ball.

Therefore, your idea can basically be described as a system that looks like two balls connected by a spring that can change stiffness where

more stretchy = slower rotation of the 1-2 ball system

less stretchy = faster rotation of the 1-2 ball system

now, anytime you increase the stiffness, you pull ball "3" and ball "1-2" together by equal and opposite forces. In fact, it should be apparent that any change in stiffness can ONLY ever result in equal and opposite forces.

Equal and opposite forces = no net movement.

That's my proof of why this wont work.

If you don't understand this, I am afraid I can't help you anymore.

>>9761489
While they are centrifuging, objects 1&2 behave as if they were more massive then they are at rest, for the brief moment when the force is applied. If no other force acted on the system they would balance out (the part about devil being in that detail, because there are other forces) and produce no net movement, just oscillation. But we do not want them to balance out, which is why as soon as object 3 surpasses the wire, objects 1&2 would pull each other fast, so that when the force on the other direction comes it will come and pull the objects directly.

>>9761495
I understand this. This is where common sense brings me too...
Will see about more calculations, maybe the full phases of the momentum transference... maybe calculations will be able to reach where this clash in common sense is occurring in me and in others that have seen this...

>>9761481

Your nonsensical explanation tells me that you're a victim of your own muddled thinking. You need to learn how to organize your ideas and communicate them in a clear manner.

see this explanation >>9761495. Learn about basic newtonian physics until you fully understand it.

>>9761502
By all means, check the details for yourself, if anything it will be a good exersize.

However, (part of) the reason why the field of physics exists at all is that it allows us to understand these sorts things without ever having to do all that unnecessary work.

>>9761496
False, they are not noticeably more massive, the change in mass is insignificant at the speed they would be moving, i think that you do not have a very good understanding of elemental physics. Again, if you want only mass 3 to move, without mass 1+2 moving towards mass 3 you wont be able to do it unless mass 1+2 is emensly more massive than mass 3, if mass 1+2 is more massive that 3, because of inertia mass 3 wont be able to drag mass 1+2.
You are asking us what is wrong with your idea, and we are pointing it out to you, yet ypu wont accept it, what is even the point of making this thread then?

>>9761290
A closed system's momentum will not change. First law of motion. You ignored the first rule.

>>9761516
I don't even think OP was even thinking of relativistic mechanics when he said they "behave as if they are more massive" Either way, it still doesn't matter.

>>9761516
Thank you for your attention. If they indeed have a mass as normal objects at rest even when pulled while on centrifuge, including the movement then all is ok, no laws of physics got broken and this setup does not work. But if they move more in one direction,, more calculations will show,, will try it, and poke the thread again.. This is the purpose of the thread in the 'proposal does not work' scenario.

>>9761517
This is not a closed system. This gains energy from solar panels and uses that to generate rotational energy, which could be where the net movement comes from. But if objects on centrifuge transfer movement in the X direction as if they were rigid and at rest, it does not matter how much energy we put to the system, it won't have net movement... and we will need to rely on shooting photons behind to move forward.

>>9761526
Then it can only gain or lose momentum based on what enters or leaves the system. The apparatus will only gain momentum opposite to the direction it absorbed the light from by p=hf/c. A tiny amount.

>>9761535
Yeah, like a solar sail...

>>9761526
You vaguely lump energy and momentum together. Even if you have infinite energy, you still can't break conservation of momentum.

>>9761541
It was not meant to break it, it was meant to use it. Recharge it with gyroscopes and solar, and transform it into total net movement as the spin is absorbed by the structure.

>>9761540
Yeah but what OP is describing is nothing like that.

>>9761552
It is, since OP here has had that in mind all along, but maybe it was not expressed correctly.

>>9761554
No. He's implying that you can take light in from any angle via small solar panels and use the energy collected to produce huge amounts of momentum in any direction you choose.

>>9761522
Then there is no reason why they should behave as if they were more massive right? Correct me if im wrong

>>9761546

>Recharge it with gyroscopes

>spin is absorbed by the structure.


We could also use deep learning... or something something quantum computer.

That might work.

>>9761564
Inb4 magnets

>>9761561
Spin with gyroscopes can be produced nicely, as space devices we put out work like that. If that spin can be used to produce net movement, that is the counterintuitive proposal. Energy from anywhere, to produce net movement, without propulsion.

>>9761564
I still think this has actual real potential, but, under this spirit of something something magnets/AI/quantumcomputers... this can also be a big troll... can it? With the aid of 4chan of course.

>>9761580
why would you want to use your time in this manner

>>9761570
Spin can be produced but spin has no direction and so does not change the system's net momentum. Also there's conservation of angular momentum so to get something spinning in one direction you also have to spin something in the opposite direction.

>>9761582
Testing out a hypothesis, or the trol variant if the hypothesis is not right?
Testing out the hypothesis, because yes.
Trol, because it could hook up other open minded access to physics and maybe the fractal universe hypothesis.

>>9761563
You are correct. It's weird because OP is clearly interested in science, yet he has not demonstrated any willingness to actually learn anything about it.

>>9761584
Gyroscopes would be spinning in the opposite direction.
While, the change to the net momentum would be because when in wide centrifuge, objects 1&2 would/could be moving a little in the -X direction as the centrifuge energy is used to keep the wire tight rather than their positional energy.

>>9761587

>Testing out a hypothesis

go test it yourself then.

learn physics
learn math
learn engineering
learn to code

build some version of the damn thing yourself or learn how to simulate it.

Be something.

>>9761590
Learning is different from insisting on a counterintuitive point. It is precisely because of the resistance here that I am aiding the potential nonsense of propulsionless space travel, because otherwise there would be nothing added to the common knowledge base and physics goes on as usual.

>>9761596
Anon, do you think a hack inventor can afford a rocket?

>>9761596
That I will/might do, testing it myself, or with borrowed skills.

>>9761599
Might afford renting space at an Elon Musk reusable rocket, or, if in the first world.

>>9761597
the only reason I'm talking to you is because I felt like sharpening my skills at explaining technical things to ignorant people because I know numbskulls like you are everywhere in whatever workplaces I may encounter in the future.

You are not "adding" anything, you're just a nuisance that I'm learning to deal with.

>>9761606
If it does not work, it is adding nothing. But if it does, or if it has a slight chance of working, the way to go is to talk/compute/emulate/build it, and this is still talking.

>>9761606
This is true, i had a guy in my class that believed all that perpetual motion, muh magnets and all that stuff. He left college, he was a good guy but not very bright

>>9761608
It will not work, and there have been multiple explanations in this thread detailing exactly why it will not work.

You should be more open minded.

>>9761290
Well done OP you've got a lot of (you)s i hope you are proud of yourself

>>9761617
Proud that I carry on until satisfied with it, because this is big and it should not be dismissed by simple 'cannot work'.
The precise explanations are different, are the thing sought after, the thing that minds.com could not give me, and physics forums are immediately on the 'shut up' stance for anything that threatens established classical understanding. I will think this over again with this new input.

Shows over folks. OP is simply not replying to posts that are actually disproving his concept.

saged

>>9761626

> have an idea related to a topic I know nothing about

> people who are knowledgable about said topic say my idea is terrible

> it's probably because my idea is too brilliant for them to understand it

you don't even know how much you don't know

>>9761593
I don't even know how to parse what you just said, let alone pick apart the dozens of physical and mathematical laws I'm certain you're violating.
Here's the big reason your thing doesn't work: 3rd law of motion: Equal and opposite reaction. If your apparatus moves in one direction, something else has to move in the opposite direction. If your two spinning balls move backwards to pull your other ball forwards then pulling those spinning balls forwards again will pull the third ball backwards the same amount. This is a hard law coded in. If you can't see why a system must obey this law for a given situation: it just does. Everything always works out that way.

>>9761626
A lot of people here gave you a pretty good explanation on this, they did not simply said 'it doesnt work' they also told you why it wont work, yet you dont want to accept it or you are not able to understand it, either way you should try and educate yourself so you may reach a satisfactory answer on your own. By the way, you could ask some physics professor or something like that, and see what the tell you

>>9761615
I am forcing myself to keep a closed mind in this point, because common sense and the folks here say 'this does not work'. But it started with 'this should not be working', so, taking in the precising of where the fault is, and will be pondering it at length the rest of this day.
If I come again tomorrow with calculations, will you be remembering the nonsense of today so you don't have to go through it again and just pick on the new stuff?

>>9761632
That is conceding. I came to be disproved. I will transmit the findings of these extra minds in the disprove path to the people I brainstorm science stuff with, and see if we can come with a reply. Given this started with personal skepticism, rather than conviction, I'd say this is pretty good in how the argument progressed.

>>9761642
At this point I seriously doubt your capacity to form a single coherent thought, and I do not believe that any calculations you present will display any semblance of understanding of the problem you are attempting to tackle.

>>9761634
This is quite precise and how I think of it too. What makes me still push towards this is how the 3rd object will move by direct force, while the spinning objects would move in towards each other, and that, changing the status of their movement abruptly and coordinately, might produce the extra energy demanded for total net movement of the system. It is energy that is otherwise lost, and it should not, due to conservation of energy... and comes from geometry and timing... and it is likely a gross mistake, but holding on with the obsession of there being nothing more to be lost here (my and your time and attention excluded, as part of the debate).

>>9761644
>That is conceding.
Sorry bro, didn't mean to be.

All the best.

>>9761649

I still don't see why this argument >>9761495
didn't convince you

you seemed to agree with all the points, yet you still claim something "unintuitive" might happen.

Its like I showed you an apple, explained to you that it was an apple and couldn't be anything else, and you keep saying "yes I understand why it can only be an apple, but still... maybe it's a banana!"

>>9761656
It is not convincing as convincing. That is how I think of it in the common sense way too.
But, if 2 objects that are going their own way (objects1&2 in centrifuge) are pulled for a brief intense moment by the string keeping them in centripull, they would be moving towards the center, and the abrupt change of movement produces forces that take energy from the existing inertia. It must count for something, else it all goes to energy in the molecules of the wire, or it is lost, and having it lost like that is kinda even more perplexing than if it balanced out perfectly.

So, maybe it is a banana, but will be pondering about it and come again tomorrow with the results.

>>9761669
sigh. you can lead a horse to water.

>>9761669
So you believe in conservation of energy but not conservation of momentum?

>>9761673
The meaning and origin of the expression: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
^^ had to search for it, did not know, letting it out for others who might not know.
Thank you for pointing at the water. Will be drinking it soon enough.

>>9761677
Conservation and transformation of momentum and energy, that is what I believe. This proposed here is a trick of geometry and synchronization of pulls that could (or never could but I did not realize it) produce net movement out of conservation of momentum.

Op, in another thread you said you were an engineer? If im not mistaken, shouldnt you be able to tackle this on your own and be able to solve it?

>>9761695
Should... hope to... maybe... not my field of formal education, but pretty much of interest, so, either I or colleagues that will be blasted with what came from this thread, will try beyond idea and imagination, to the formulas...

I like the concept of Propulsionless .All the breakthroughin in the tecnology that we have today came from accepting new ideas and as someone else said here " If it does not work, it is adding nothing. But if it does, or if it has a slight chance of working, the way to go is to talk/compute/emulate/build it, and this is still talking."

>>9761695
Electrical engineer most likely. They're usually the ones who come up with all these cranky ideas. I'd love to know why, actually.

>>9761687
The exact same mechanism that ensures conservation of energy also ensures conservation of momentum. These are two independent conservation laws, and you cannot use one to break the other. Stop stubbornly refusing to accept this, this has gone on long enough.

>>9761701

>Electrical Engineer

You're right, I know this one EE who thinks he found a theory of everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiSINg5tUkU

It's fucking retarded and he clearly has no grasp or understanding of the subject matter, but he doesn't let any of that get in his way...

>>9761730
Thank you for sharing. Watching it now.

>>9761730
It's probably because EEs are often the smartest people in their social circles, but rarely interact with people in the even more theoretical fields. This inflates their egoes quite rapidly with nobody to put them in their place.

>>9761701
Im a ChemE and im pretty confident about my understanding of basic physics, it seem to me that it is pretty dangerous and shameful to have engineers out there that do not have this kind of concepts well understood and assumed as true. I now understand why sci is so harsh with engineers most of the time

>>9761375
Take a high school physics course. Nothing in the OP sounds plausible. Not a single equation or evocation of physical laws.

>>9761450
From this picture everything is either in equillibrium or is in a constant state of fotation. This won't get you anywhere

>>9761730
Watched it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiSINg5tUkU)) Seems like a cool theory to be keeping and juggling around when trying to re-envision how our lightspeed physics works. Hope it gets shut down by facts and maths, unlike the wave function that never collapses which passes all the math thrown at it but still was shot down... or, if not shot down, I hope it gets developed into any component of the Theory of Everything that could use that kind of visualization of how forces and energies interact.

>>9761701
>The exact same mechanism that ensures conservation of energy also ensures conservation of momentum
Only in a relativistic context -- in classical physics they are quite separate.

>>9761820
Both are a consequence of a symmetry through Noether's theorem. Time symmetry => energy conservation, spatial symmetry => momentum conservation. That's what I meant.

>>9761730
Watched all the public videos on that channel. Seems the EE in question has been using the ring hypothesis to reimagine everything in our understanding of physics, and the analogies work reasonably well, (more than Newtonian vs. Einsteinian).
We are using a similar approach, and taking into the base tile of physics even more abstract concepts, the wave itself, rather than the ring as a topological form where the various waves come together in a way that resembles how we see physics so far. Everything in the world would then be produced by constructive and destructive interferences of that wave. And the wave wraps around itself in the sense of intended by the wave function that never collapses. The analogy in the ring hypothesis is obvious ring wrap around. The analogy in Nima's Amplituhedron is how Nima takes into account only the positive space of the multidimensional grid, but the positive has all the negatives associated with it and they wrap around infinity and form the grid as intended by Nima, while in our approach it does not need to go to infinity, just far enough to be 'as if infinitely far', and proceed in the pseudo wraparound of the wave function that never collapses as intended by Hugh Everett III.

>>9761290
Cool

>>9761825
Yeah but they are different symmetries and one could be broken leaving the other in tact.

>>9761833
Dude just stop.

>>9761860
Hey, I may stop towards propulsionless space travel, but this is research to the formula of the universe, this should not stop.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiSINg5tUkU)) shows that we have a lot to learn about physics and nature of Energy.
there always a solution if we open up our mind.

>>9761873
>but this is research to the formula of the universe,
Underage b&

Reliving the scientific revolution every damn day. It’s lovely. We’ve gone from gazing from the shoulders of giants to chiseling away at their shinbones.

Lesson to take from this: do not propose an idea if you cannot back it up. Let good ideas be lost because of ideator's inability to defend it, and coop be damned, especially if it violates a law of physics... if...

Stage 01:

Object 1 position: [+a, +b, z=0]
Object 1 momentum: [0, 0, z*V1]
Object 1 rest mass = object 2 rest mass = 1/2 object 3 rest mass
Force on object 1: centrifugal from the inertia and centripetal from the wire = m1 * V1 * V1 / b

Object 2 position: [+a, -b, z=0]
Object 2 momentum: [0, 0, -z*V1]
Object 2 rest mass = object 1 rest mass = 1/2 object 3 rest mass
Force on object 2: centrifugal from the inertia and centripetal from the wire = m2 * V1 * V1 / b


Object 3 position: [x=0, y=0, z=0]
Object 3 momentum: [x=0, y=0, z=0]
Object 3 rest mass = object 1 rest mass + object 2 rest mass = 2 * object 1 rest mass = 2 * object 2 rest mass
Force on object 3: nothing yet

>>9761290
This will not work, because rotating energy of 1-2 will not be transferred to 3. When 1-2 pulled at the center with constant acceleration they will come closer and rotate faster. The radius of rotation depends on acceleration (more acceleration, smaller radius). When acceleration is removed 1-2 will return to original rotation radius and will have original rotation speed.

>>9762052
>Force on object 1: centrifugal from the inertia and centripetal from the wire = m1 * V1 * V1 / b
You mean tension?
With the forces you provided, balls 1 and 2 continue to orbit around the middle of the wire. There's no momentum in the x or y directions so there's no motion in those directions. There's no force on 3 so it doesn't interact with the other two balls. Nothing happens.

>>9762071
Yes, tension.
No forces and no movements because this is the starting phase, before any pull from object 3

>>9762073
Okay. What happens next?

>>9762073
The net momentum of the how system is zero. There is no what the system could gain momentum unless it ejects mass.

>>9762082
Next, object 3 starts pulling, objects 1&2 move closer together, and maybe they don't move in -X direction as much as object 3 moves in +X

>>9762086
This is the common sense, no way for the system to gain momentum, that is why brute forcing through these calculations that do not come easy any bit, but needing to close this chapter if this is wrong, or open it wide if this is right.

>>9762091
If object 3 pulls, objects 1 and 2 pull back just as much. All that happens is they get close together. Why would that create net momentum in either direction?

>>9762095
>This is the common sense, no way for the system to gain momentum
No, it's a physical law.
>that is why brute forcing through these calculations that do not come easy any bit
You can't trick nature.
>but needing to close this chapter if this is wrong, or open it wide if this is right.
The chapter is definitely, positively closed. Been so since about the mid 18th century.

>>9762096
Because to change the velocity of objects 1&2 force is applied, but that force is at angle aiming towards the center much more than on the X, and that force is not applied to a rigid structure that would react instantly against, so, objects 1&2 would start moving closer to each other, and repeat repeat of what calculations might show, objects 1&2 might not move as much as object 3 in the desired direction of motion.

>>9762096
If 1&2 move less on X than object 3, ... if ... and seems it requires differential equations of which I have indigestion from.

>>9762109
No, it's doesn't matte. Newton's tird law is "if 1 exerts a force F on 2, the force on 2 is -F." The differential equation is just Newton's Second Law, but it isn't even necessary to apply because your design is equivalent to a sailboat with a fan blowing at its sail, just with extra steps.

>>9762109
No, it doesn't matter. Newton's Third Law is "if 1 exerts a force F on 2, then 2 exerts -F on 1". There's no need to apply a differential equation since there are no external forces on the system. If there's no forces on the system, it will remain in equilibrium. Internally there are forces, but those can't move the whole. It doesn't take much to see your design is like a sailboat with a fan on board blowing at the sail, just with extra steps.

>>9762119
At the first moment of object3 pulling, pulling on the center of the flexible wire connecting objects 1&2 will move them no bit. After that, any pull would have an angle on the wire, thus resulting in counterforces that have X component too. This is where the differential equation comes in, the delta moments as force keeps pulling the center string more and objects 1&2 follow, which is where the difference in movement in the X direction I hope to pop out.

>>9762125
*pull them no bit in the X direction, I mean...

>>9762125
>At the first moment of object3 pulling, pulling on the center of the flexible wire connecting objects 1&2 will move them no bit.
Wrong. Radius of the balls from the middle necessarily decreases, increasing tension,extering a force back on 1.

>>9762135
yes, I meant the X direction, where we want the net force of the system to get us to... I am counting on transformations of radius and such, because this is not a perpetum mobile, this is supposed to work by taking energy from centrifuge and putting it to the X direction, then recharging the centrifuge.

>>9762135
formulation is not coming along well, and if I wait for my better adapt friend to come aid, it will be a couple of days... I shall draw what I expect to happen, in simplified form, ok?

>>9762150
What part of conservation of momentum do you not understand? The right two balls gain no momentum except as toward the center of mass of the system. You've rigged an overly elaborate device that pulls three objects closer together. Nothing can GAIN external total momentum, it doesn't matter how fancy the internal motion or forces are.

>>9762158
There is no simplifies form. I understood your drawing and the steps pretty well. You are confused about how the motion develops. If your friend actually knows physics he will tell you the same.

Perhaps OP is getting confused and thinking that whenever you pull on something you magically create momentum from nothing. Perhaps he forgets that whenever you pull on something in daily life you tend to push off against the floor.

>>9762163
If the 3 objects can be pulled together, but then, as one of them (object 3) carries on with inertia, the other 2 pull at each other until they become one, I think the 1&2 objects are able to gain more momentum in the X direction than they started with, by slingshoting object 3 forward when they have centrifugal energy, and by pulling it back after they have come together to gain direct +X momentum.

>>9762178
>I think the 1&2 objects are able to gain more momentum in the X direction than they started with, by slingshoting object 3 forward when they have centrifugal energy, and by pulling it back after they have come together to gain direct +X momentum
Holy shit no. They rotating balls gain momentum in -x, ball 3 gains momentum in x. And stop saying inertia, that's not a force.

>>9762186

>>9762192
Yep. The force vectors all point to the intersection of the three wires, thus they all accelerate inward. No gain in total momentum.

>>9762198

>>9762212
So they get closer until they collide. At that point either bounce off each other elastically, which would roughly put them back in the initial position. Or they collide inelastically, whereby they would now all be touching and motionless. The contraption just pulls the three objects together, nothing more.

>>9762223
no no no, no collisions, these represent positions, but think of the objects as small compared to the vastness of space, they will pass through each other, the wires also, or with minimal maneuvering.

>>9762227
>they will pass through each other, the wires also, or with minimal maneuvering
This is getting so stupid. Even supposing that we have magic wires and masses that can teleport through each other, where does the momentum come from? The masses will continue moving on their individual trajectory until the ropes are taught inte again. Then they'll stop moving.

>>9762232
Objects that don't aim at a collision, and wires that can be detached or rotated as even dog collars can so space devices can of course. Works almost as magic. : )

>>9762232
continue moving their trajectory until ropes are taught again

>>9762235
>Objects that don't aim at a collision
They do aim at collision if all the force comes from tension in the wires, and the wires all meet. I do agree with one thing: your device works because of magical, non physical principles.
>>>/x/
I'm redirecting you because your design has been thoroughly trashed (that was the question in the OP) yet you won't accept the truth.

>>9762236
>objects continue in line of motion until acted on by force
Like the tension in the wires? Pulling them back again?

>>9762241
wires are represented as 1 wire here as simpler to draw, but they can more wires, able to guide the fine details too

I think it might work. Cats and snowboarders can rotate in air so why not? If your slingshot generates energy in one direction and then disperses the opposite reaction in perpendicular motion you could generate net force in the forward direction, right? Idk lol

But idk how you'd actually design it

>>9762243
Objects are not passive, they are motors and gyroscopes, they can pull their wires if needed. They are not asteroids lashed in.

>>9762251
Yet there is very clearly 3 ideal wires in the design that meet at a point

>>9762256
they could meet at different points close by, and use that to navigate sideways of the collision trajectory.

>>9762252
>Cats and snowboarders can rotate in air so why not?
Because they started their rotation before leaving the ground.
>If your slingshot generates energy in one direction and then disperses the opposite reaction in perpendicular motion you could generate net force
It's very clear you don't know the distinction between energy and force. And the motion is parallel to force.
>you could generate net force in the forward direction, right? Idk lol
>but idk how you'd actually design it
You can't and you don't because it ain't possible. I'm going to stop advising you on your free energy device now.

>>9762263
cats generate rotation, with the gyroscope use of their arms, like our orbiting telescopes do with technological gyroscopes. This is using this rotation.

>>9762273
buhahahaha

>>9762273
An isolated gyroscope cant start rotating without external force.

>>9762277
Solar panels, motors, magnets even, because motors... and the normal use of gyroscopes to gyrate the combined objects 1&2

>>9762279
"No!"

>>9762280
' ' y e s ' '

>>9762255
That depends on if your object is an aggressive chad

What I think now is that objects 1&2 should not be pulling at each other while object 3 pulls at them, as to minimize the rigidity of the system. This works because it pulls on the object thus causing the direction of forces to twist, but if the forces are so tight that the whole centrifuging pair acts as if bridged, and reacts instantly to the pull from object 3, it would minimize its effect, rather than maximize it as we originally thought.

>>9762321
>we

>>9762333
and that 'we' does not include just /sci/, but also who I debated and keep debating it with, online and offline...

>>9762321
the most efficient actually should be to pull a little, let it 'heal' by centrifuge energy, pull again, transferring energy at the maximum angle, but maximum fluidity also.

>>9762343
I'm sure you two will make loads from this invention. Just don't let anyone steal your idea!

>>9762346
maybe it could be a mix of pulling the string tightly when object 3 stops,,, maybe it could be organized in synchronized vibration, bursts of pulls and releases that would not rigidify the system but still keep the tight line for the right angle to gain maximum from the conversion.

>>9762350
Actually we hope the idea works and the whole world steals it. I hope such a simple design, or the concept of pull rather than push rockets, cannot be patented. Open Source FTW!

>>9762343
hahahaah, you are making a fool out of yourself. why won't you just accept that it doesn't work? i don't get it, are trolling? or are you really unable to understand the reasoning behind why it won't work. what's so difficult about this?

>>9762386
*are you trolling?....

>>9762343

> debating

> "you can't do this" - "but what if you could?" - "you can't" - "but what if you could?" - ... ad nauseam.

>>9762397
This is taking advantage of the sigleton organic behind my keyboard, but the world is swarm, and others can fill in where I cannot produce the proofs needed.
As divided in stages, and seeking the forces and movements in the grid, it at least can be calculated, and it is too important to let it slip out without an attempt at proving it beyond the 'cannot be done' part. Emulating it even.

>>9761909
Top fucking kek

>>9762418
> the world is swarm, and others can fill in where I cannot produce the proofs needed.

this is literally what happened in this thread

>>9762418
>even after I'm told by those more knowledgable than me it is fundamentally, absolutely against laws of physics and impossible, I will continue to seek a nifty workaround!
Have fun

>>9762425
Yes, and it pointed out to where a particular debate of possible vs. impossible stays, and that can be calculated by the people I know, I think, and we will be doing it, because it is still within the possible as I see it.

>>9762431
I don't think it is a violation of the laws of physics. This is not a perpetual motion machine. This takes rotational energy in one direction, and guides it into another direction, potentially creating net force from just EM to power the gyroscopes.

>>9762433
>because it is still within the possible as I see it.
Wishing really hard that it's possible doesn't make it any less impossible.

>>9762442
wishing really hard for a friend to calculate this for me will make it possible, I think,, : P

>>9762440
It's a violation of conservation of momentum. Lmao what do you know about EM?

>>9762451
>pls do the calculations for my free momentum machine for me

>>9762454
that it can power gyroscopes from solar panels

>>9762457
Well, you call it that, I call it transformation of sun's energy by means of geometry and synchronization of pull.

>>9762459
That's it? Do you know the only way a satellite can achieve net rotation is through thrusters?

This thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc

>>9762471
this is where you are wrong, and not only devices that can put gyroscopes to their center can achieve net rotation, but that works having gyroscopes on the outside also, though needs more balancing. Still, net rotation in space, easy peasy, done for ages.

>>9762476
Oh really? What satellite or space craft uses this technology. It's amazing what modern engineering can do.

>>9762475
Pointing out inconsistencies (beyond can't be done) and refining the model, yes, that takes a lot of back and forth. That is collective thought in process.

>>9762485
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AR4yntqLsQ

>>9762487
>Pointing out inconsistencies (beyond the most striking one)
Ftfy

>>9762459
>>9762440
There are more laws of physics than energy conservation. You have to obey ALL of them.
When you use a motor to accelerate a gyro's rotor, the motor (and whatever it's attached to) counter-rotate. Angular as well as linear momentum is always conserved.

Every mechanical device, no matter how complex, no matter how many gears and wheels it has, is ultimately an assemblage of pairs of parts pushing against each other. Newton's 3rd applies EXACTLY to every single one of those interactions and, therefore, to the device as a whole.

I should add that it's not just "mechanical" devices. Electromagnetism can't produce a net force either (though, since we can't see most fields directly, it's not always obvious.)
Several threads on /sci/ today are chortling over the announcement that the Emdrive doesn't work either. The tiny force is an interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. Ultimately, it's pushing (infinitesimally and not very efficiently) against the planet itself.

Interestingly, all the important names in space flight -- Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, vonBraun -- all imagined some combination of gyroscopes lifting them towards the planets. As they grew up, they learned science, figured out that doesn't work, and devoted their efforts to rockets.

>>9762503
>telescope depends on external magnetic field to rotate
Thanks for proving my point

>>9762518
That is not proving your point, that is proving my point.
That is why helicopters need stabilizators, or, by just swinging their helices in one direction they would spin their body in the opposite direction. That is how objects 1&2 are to gain their spin, by counter spin, of something that can spin several times over, like a gyroscope.

>>9762476
>>9762485
There are 5 ways to change the orientation of a spacecraft without using rockets.
1) Reaction wheels
2) "Cat" physics
Both of these can change orientation but NOT net angular momentum. If you had no rotation (relative to the distant stars) before employing them, you will always have zero net angular momentum.

The only way to change your angular momentum is by interacting with something else. There's rockets, but we already said we didn't want to use them because we'll run out of fuel eventually.
3) Torqueing yourself magnetically
4) Gravity gradient stabilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity-gradient_stabilization
These methods "couple" you to the Earth.
5) Light pressure
Normally, you think of this in terms of "solar sails" driving a spacecraft, but you can also use it for orientation. The Kepler observatory lost one reaction wheel after another until there weren't enough remaining to point it accurately. It looked like the mission was at an end. But the engineers realized that by point solar panels edge-on or face-on to the Sun, they could create a torque. Kepler is still running today using this procedure. It's not as flexible (because Kepler orbits the Sun and the region they can point to changes every few months) but it works.

>>9762558
cat physics can generate net momentum

>>9762565
helicopter physics

>>9761290
No matter how clever these kind of things are, it will never work, because you could hook up a generator on it, make the thing go in a circle, and you would have limitless energy. This is not possible, and neither is you construction.

>>9762572
Not limitless free energy, where did that come from? Energy from the sun...

>>9762565
Where did you learn physics? Or think you did.
Cite source for "angular momentum is not conserved".
Cats pull in their front paws, reducing the moment of inertia of the forepart of their bodies and twist, reacting against their hindquarters. Then they re-extend their paws and un-twist their spines. Orientation has changed but not net angular momentum.

Cats have strange abilities, but breaking physics isn't among them.

>centrifugal energy

>>9762575
A non-rocket space drive can ALWAYS be turned into a perpetual motion machine.
Constant thrust means constant acceleration. Powering the drive takes energy, but that doesn't depend upon your motion because you're not pushing against anything "external". So the power consumed (from the battery or the Sun) is a linear function of time since the drive was turned on.
But the kinetic energy (measured against the craft's motion at the instant before you started the drive) varies as the SQUARE of time. Eventually, it exceeds the energy it took to run the space drive. Energy has come from nowhere.

>>9762585
Centrifugal bullshit.
Now you're just throwing words around without any idea of what they mean.
GO AWAY!!!

>>9762583
Cat physic does generate net total rotation. Helicopter physics does generate net total rotation, that needs to be compensated for, because it is a nuisance in that setup.
Gyroscopes orienting telescopes does generate net total rotation.
Anything you can keep pushing in one direction will push the rest in the other direction. A wheel can keep pushing/rotating, unlike the paws of a cat, which have to be retracted, or ballerina extending arms and 1 leg.

>>9762596
>A non-rocket space drive can ALWAYS be turned into a perpetual motion machine.
Any example of that? Because the design proposed here is not that.

If it comes down to if net rotation can be generated, then propulsionless travel is possible. the error is or should be elsewhere.

>>9761290
Isn't this a three body problem

Quote from wikipedia: In physics and classical mechanics, the three-body problem is the problem of taking an initial set of data that specifies the positions, masses, and velocities of three bodies for some particular point in time and then determining the motions of the three bodies, in accordance with Newton's laws of motion and of universal gravitation, which are the laws of classical mechanics. The three-body problem is a special case of the n-body problem. Unlike two-body problems, there is no general closed-form solution for every condition, and numerical methods are needed to solve these problems.

>>9762630
The three body problem is when objects are pulled by gravity. Here they are pulled by literal strings, EM forces in chains of molecules, not gravity.

>>9762609
Yes it is.
For the moment, we'll assume it works.
Since it's not reacting against anything external it doesn't matter if we build a shell around the entire apparatus. Now we just have a "black box". Maybe there's a wire sticking out so we can supply power. Maybe the battery is inside the shell too and all that shows is the "on/off" switch. The location of the power source doesn't matter.

Now we have a long straight railroad track.
We put the black box on a railcar and let it accelerate down the track. The tracks are level so any force exerted on the car goes into its kinetic energy.
Assume any mass you like for the car and any efficiency you like for the motor (that is, how many watts of input current it takes to produce 1 newton of force so long as the current is on.)
You'll find that, after you've run the system for a while and speed (relative to the tracks) has gotten high enough, the KE of the car exceeds the energy that's been drained from the battery.

The ONLY exception is a photon rocket. Steady power produces steady thrust. But the "crossover velocity", the speed at which there's a net gain of energy, is lightspeed. Since you can't exceed lightspeed, that's not a problem. But any space drive MORE efficient than a photon rocket is a perpetual motion machine. We can always tap some of the energy (the railcar wheels turn a generator and the "drag" equals the motor's thrust so speed becomes constant) to keep the battery charged and have energy left over.

>>9762618
Further pondering brings me to suggest maybe the centrifugal force should not be that tight, and the pull should be the intermittent coordination mentioned earlier but tugging at the objects directly. The centrifuging objects would 'stiffify' the slingshot, and it needs to be elastic pull to transform the force from Y between objects 1&2 to X

>>9762641
Shell pulled along with the apparatus, or shell constant in space, which would end up pierced through when the apparatus that we assumed working finally reaches the edge of the shell and has to pass?
I think a shell around it would be nice in actual application, for protection, but that if we make it light enough, like mesh of spiderweb layers.

>>9762618
Solar panels can coil up a spring, so objects 1&2 can push themselves apart again, no gyroscope needed. If object 3 always pulls at them in one direction when they are apart, and in the other direction when together... yeah, it could work...

>>9762706
Hey, that's easier to calculate, wink wink

>>9762727
Still requires derivatives, but can be integrated in actual steps, such as seconds and meters, so, if not stomaching that maybe step by step in actual steps...

>>9762739
Actual steps yay,
Integrals nay,

ITT OP talks to himself

>>9762618
>if
And what a MASSIVE if that is
>if only we could sidestep fundamental properties

>>9762748
I have been referencing a few previous posts and improving on them, using the thread to store and elaborate my own thoughts and concepts. Did not want it to look like talking to myself though.

>>9762618
If 3 objects are spread around rather than 2, it could have the tension and still act as flexible?

More than 200 posts and we still haven't moved anywhere from
>it doesnt work
>but it might work

>>9762706
referencing self post and writing this down for the itching of anon, but, hey, this does not violate the laws of physics and works almost better than the previously suggested repositioning of objects 1&2 through gyroscope recharge.

>>9762706
>Solar panels
So you've got propulsion.

>>9762778
continuing self reference: whichever method to use to split the objects apart, as long as we can inject inertia in them, and use that inertia to pull perpendicular to it... hah, and this is indeed easier to compute.

>>9762780
Propulsion of objects 1&2 between each other, and the string to pull them together, with an object3 oscillating in between them, pulling selectively on one side when objects 1&2 are apart and on the other when together.

>>9762780
Well, indeed, this would make it not 'propulsionless' space travel, so we will have to use gyroscopes after all if we want to call it that... or call it whatever as long as it can generate net movement with just EM energy and solar.

>>9762777
It definately wont work. OP needs to gb2 >>>/x/

>>9762798
proof will be provided soon, but maybe not in this thread

>>9762777
While the main debate may be 'can or cannot be done', on the can-be-done side there have been improvement on the design, including a shell and the potential to use it as a generator.

The 'potential to use it as a generator' was part of the argument that it is a perpetual motion machine.

Maybe this will help as an analogous problem

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/conversion-of-angular-momentum-to-linear-momentum.669336/

>>9762803
Proof that something we are telling you won't work, doesn't work won't make for a very interesting thread.

>>9762833
>on the can-be-done side there have been improvement on the design, including a shell and the potential to use it as a generator.
On the "can-be-done" side there have been attempts to tack on means to make it work, which won't make it work.
Let me make this as simple as possible. It won't work. You won't get something for nothing. There is no free lunch.

>>9762874
No free lunch, it is being fed by the sun. But maybe frictionless way to travel through space without push?

And, in regards to interesting or not interesting thread, if propulsionless space travel is proved you will be cheering for it too, and we will all be having fun.

>>9762863
maybe that was the joke, but improvements on design have been made, like proposing charging springs rather than charging angular momentum.

Simplified it, no 'z' axis, no rotation. We can get 2 objects in space pushed apart without rockets, and we can rope them back together too.

In the drawing I am assuming the worst case on how objects 1&2 react to the pull, as if they ended up in that direction to begin with, because I cannot integrate the smooth curve, but the difference is negligible, and as I said, it works against the proposal's goal. For a pull by object 3 on the point c of center between objects 1&2, objects 1&2 end up moving in the new directions. The difference between b and b' is exaggerated because of the size of the objects is exaggerated. The actual movement is minuscule, especially if not pulling the string to that angle as drawn,, but now names can be put on the angles and forces to be calculated...

>>9762663
Shell attached to the apparatus so it moves along. "Black box" means "sealed".
Weight of shell just gets added in as part of the weight of the railcar.

It's still an integral part of a perpetual motion machine.
It's nothing to be concerned about because the basic idea of "pushing against nothing" does work.
You have to understand that all the various conservations laws -- energy, linear and angular momentum -- are part of a seamless whole. You can't break one and not break the others.

>>9762892
It IS a free lunch. You just haven't thought it through. Or you haven't gotten far enough in physics.

If there WAS a reactionless drive, I'd love to be able to get to Pluto in no more than a week or two, and in comfort. I've read as much SF as anybody here. But it doesn't work. (And maybe it's a good thing, because it leads immediately to planet-smashing relativistic weapons. A package hitting Earth at 99% lightspeed is equivalent to 14 times its rest-mass in antimatter.)

>>9762948
Then object 3 releases its pull and objects 1&2 tighten up the wire.
Then object 3 pulls again,
And repeat, until object 3 surpasses the wire, or objects 1&2 end up close together, though for actual space travel I expect a spread of several kilometers.

>>9762663
Shell attached to the apparatus so it moves along. "Black box" means "sealed".
Weight of shell just gets added in as part of the weight of the railcar.

It's still an integral part of a perpetual motion machine.
It's nothing to be concerned about because the basic idea of "pushing against nothing" does not work.
You have to understand that all the various conservations laws -- energy, linear and angular momentum -- are part of a seamless whole. You can't break one and not break the others.

>>9762892
It IS a free lunch. You just haven't thought it through. Or you haven't gotten far enough in physics.

If there WAS a reactionless drive, I'd love to be able to get to Pluto in no more than a week or two, and in comfort. I've read as much SF as anybody here. But such a drive is impossible. (And maybe it's a good thing, because it leads immediately to planet-smashing relativistic weapons. A package hitting Earth at 99% lightspeed is equivalent to 14 times its rest-mass in antimatter.)

>>9762962
Is the shell is sealed, then keep it for yourself, it faks nothing.

>>9762962
A sealed shell not attached to anything, then it will be smashed through, it is innevitable

>>9762966
By how this is being approached, maybe it was meant to derail the conversation.

derail from nothing, until proof, this is a stale, and shell proposals are fun trols

>>9762948
You left out some arrows.
The tension in the strings (blue) gets resolved into red and green components.
You forgot the green arrow pointing left at C.
The two green arrows are exactly equal and opposite.
No net force is produced no matter how many times you repeat the cycle.

>>9762977
Thanks,
So, object 3 pulls a lot more string to get to move and keep the force in green arrow. This translates into movement in the blue direction, but since these are comparable masses the movement in blue direction means a lot more of that tiny exaggerated b - b', than in the X direction, which is why the negligible comment.

>>9762959
And you get zero net forward motion.

>>9762989
If we let objects 3 and the duo 1&2 move in inertia from this moment on, for ease of making it a proof, we get object 3 that moves more, because force was applied directly in the desired direction, and objects 1&2 moving very slowly in -X.

>describing what you think should happen to some objects
Truely the pinnacle of design.

>>9763001
Objects 1&2 pull each other close and become a single body (and align springs or gyroscopes in between them). After object 3 surpasses them in the X direction, objects joined12 and 3 pull, but this time object joined12 is pulled in the X direction.

>>9763008
all designs start with little steps, even stupid ones

>>9763013
You will never get anywhere by making imprecise qualitative statements like
"3 pulls on 1 and 2 a little bit and 1 and 2 get very close ... ..."
I highly recommend you take some kind of basic physics course before trying to revolutionize space travel.

>>9763040
That is what all the graphics are about, to clarify which should add to which and which to subtract to which to get to the net movement.
>>9762977

>>9763043
clarify I mean make it clearer to the collective including this particular self

m1 = m2 = 1/2 m3
if we aim at 1G acceleration of object 3, what movement would cause application of that force for 1 second to a wire of tiny mass and to objects 1 and 2, 1 km away from the center being pulled...?

>>9763001
The green forces are EXACTLY identical.
If masses 1, 2, and 3 are all equal then 3 will move right at twice the speed that 1 & 2 move left.
But 1 & 2 combined carry the same momentum to the left as 3 carries to the right.
Do not confuse velocity with momentum.
That's why it's important to plug in numbers. Diagrams can be mis-leading (though they certainly help) but the numbers are what count.

>>9762966
>>9762969
The "shell" is called a "control volume". It doesn 't even have to be real. It just signifies that nothing crosses the boundary. Or, if something DOES cross, we can account for it. It could be a lightyear across and the mechanism free to move around inside. Or it could be attached to the mechanism and move with it.

The point is to isolate a part of a system. Suppose I never lift the hood of my car. The engine compartment is a "black box". Fuel and air go in. Hot gasses and a rotating shaft come out. I don't know what sort of engine is in there and I don't care. Inputs and outputs are all that matter.

If a black box purports to violate some physical law I don't have to go to the trouble of examining & analyzing what's inside. I know the claim is bogus. (Or our understanding of physics is ALL wrong, but you're going to have to be awfully persuasive to convince me that a few hundred years of experimentation totally blew it!)

Jeez, some times I think half the people on /sci/ (I'm not singling out just the posters in this thread) learned science from watching Roadrunner cartoons.

>>9763097
Green identical forces. Object 3 pulls a lot of wire to get 1G out of it, center c moves a lot in that meanwhile.

Object 3 is supposed to be as massive as objects 1&2 combined and at rest, but that changes little.

What changes more is how much speed do objects 1&2 gain in the X direction? Since to get 1G out of object 3, objects 1&2 would be pulled at a 1km from where they are, they will resist that pull with their own inertia while the wire will transform that from the Y direction to the force in green. If they were in a rigid bridge kind of structure they would be matching X movement exactly. They are pulled by strings. Not the same.

>>9763097
Then the control volume will move along, having the average of object 3 trajectory's as its center. How would that affect the rest of the experiment? Objects pushpull on nothing outside, yet move, if we assume it works and it produces net movement for the energy provided. No gasses behind. Maybe disturbances in the higgs field but all balanced out.

>>9761290
>Two hundred and forty six replies to a question solved by a single free body diagram.
Sasuga OP

>>9761290
>>9762270
>>9762977

Aiding a bit the setup of stage 2 ready for proof calculations:

m1 = m2 = 1/2 m3 (rest mass of objects 1&2 combined = rest mass of object 3, m3. Relations of masses to each other is more important than the actual mass, but we can use 1 unit of mass as m3)

t' = 0 (start time of this stage)
v1x @ t' = 0 (velocity of object 1 in the x axis at the beginning of time)
v1y @ t' = 0 (same as above for the y axis, and there is no z axis)
v2x @ t' = 0
v2y @ t' = 0
v3x @ t' = 0
v3y @ t' = 0 (and all other times, since object 3 does not move in any other direction in the examples)
X1 = a (position of object 1 to the grid)
X2 = a
X3 = 0
Y1 = b (=1, one unit of distance, though 1km rather than 1m)
Y2 = -b
Y3 = 0 (and will stay like that)

From t' to t'', force is applied

t'' = 1 (one unit of time, seconds)
v1x @ t'' = ? (relates to: force component on the x axis, time, and mass)
V1y @ t'' = ? (relates to: force component on the y axis, time, and mass, but is not as important since movement on y axis will be on the intermediary stages but not part of the total net movement in the x axis)

F1 @ t' != F1 @ t'' (force on the wire on object 1)
F1 @ t' = ? (F1x & F2x relating to sin&cos of the angles of component forces)
F1 @ t'' (-&+) = ?&0 (the moment force stops, and the bit before it at ? and after it at 0)

Unknown yet and out of current reach: the displacement of the center of the wire. From this, the angles and the rest of distances and displacements should be deducible.

And it requires integrals to be solved.

>>9764263
Have you reached anything conclusive?

>>9763128
If the control volume is imaginary then it has no effect on the apparatus. It's just a means of ensuring nothing has been overlooked or neglected.

>Objects pushpull on nothing outside, yet move, if we assume it works and it produces net movement for the energy provided
You're assuming it works without any evidence whatsoever.
Someone riddled Abraham Lincoln, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
Lincoln replied, "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
"Assume that it works" is similar.

The Higgs Field is sometimes analogized as "molasses" which gives objects mass. It's a poor analogy. The HF has zero interaction with unaccelerated objects and, when it interacts with accelerated ones, the interaction is Lorentzian; it doesn't depend on your velocity relative to the field. If either condition was violated, we'd be back to the aether and a means to measuring "absolute motion".

Watch https://youtu.be/7cj6oiFDEXc
The Unrah Effect. Acceleration seemingly pulls radiation out of nowhere. The radiation depends ONLY on acceleration. If you can keep up 10 gravities boost indefinitely, you're clearly gaining velocity (and will eventually approach lightspeed) but the radiation never varies. So it can't be employed as a "speedometer". The Higgs works the same way.

Incidentally, gravity counts as "acceleration". You're pulling 1 gee just staring at your screen. So you're being bathed in Unrah Radiation at this very second. (Too weak to be harmful or even detected with current technology.)

>>9764263

>And it requires integrals to be solved.

oh shit son

>>9764603
only that stage needs integration to be calculated because deals with transfering inertia between x & y axes. the other stages are linear transformations.

>>9764884
No inertia is "transferred"
X-momentum is conserved independently of Y-momentum.
Thinking that they interact when a force is applied at some intermediate angle may be the cause of your problem.

>>9764908
Indeed, that is where the discussion has refined the issue, and where formulaic proof is needed to convince any unconvinced that there is no frictionless movement without pushing against something.

>>9762948
You will need to compute it all, including the negligible parts, because if there is anything to be gained it will be in that minuscule curve, all other parts are matched.
And if that is indeed the case, it won't be a worthy gain and we are better off collecting hydrogen or dust and shooting it back if lasers are not powerful enough.

>>9761290
>>9762192
>>9762977
>>9764263

Here is why it does work: Work done to move c, done by motor of 3, even at the same force, as 3 pulls it, is quite a lot, seeing how 1 & 2 will have to be pulled quite hard by the tension in the strings (flexible, not elastic, not rigid). This work goes all to 3, in the x direction. This is not replied as such when 1 & 2 are pulled on the other direction.

>>9766181
work, therefore heat, spread around while pulling rather than pushed around, but, while pulling, while doing work, which, same force, delivers more movement to object 3 than to 'massless' c, while c replies back with the same force, as it grabs it from 1 & 2 much more tightly.

>>9766209
and violates no laws of physics

we need integrals to solve an equation for the movement of c, but we know c moves a lot, triangle equations, and that translates to extra work of the same force, and extra movement, and, proplsionless space travel

>>9761290
>Object 3 pulls the fiber connecting objects 1 & 2
How is 3 getting pulled towards 1 and 2 specifically?

>>9766181
And it works better in the original plan, when centrifuging away, because more force in total, tenser string, before it slopes away from right angle.

>>9766250
Object 3 is a technological object, computers, motors, etc, even human habitat. Solar panels and batteries.

>>9766181
>>9766209
>>9766212
>>9766227
I don't care how you try to finagle it.
It doesn't work.
If you add up the momenta of all objects at any arbitrary intermediate position, they'll always be zero.
Movement (and/or velocity) is not momentum!!

If you're not convinced by now that you haven't discovered a novel phenomena which has mysteriously eluded everyone since Galileo, I don't see how any further explanations on my part are going to do any good.

The patent office has, literally, hundreds of "reactionless thrusters" on file.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive
The Wikipedia article mentions just a few. Dean and Laithwaith are the most famous "inventors".
None work.
If you want to waste your time (and even build something) go ahead. At least you'll learn something about mechanics in the process.

>>9761290
Build it and test it or we'll never know.

>>9761290
I think this requires that object 3 be a lot more massive than objects 1 & 2, or else instead of object 3 pulling the other two forward it will be 1 and 2 pulling 3 back. Also how is object 3 attached to the whole thing, you said it's carbon fiber but in some pictures it looks like it's silly string.>>9761312

>>9766258
Be more clear; by that description it would seem as if it were propelling the body forward, which would not be "propulsionless."

>>9766277
Object 3 has batteries, motor, solar panels, and gains energy from there, to pull the string, to to heat the motor.

>>9766271
And if the cure for cancer came to the head of someone who cannot afford education meme?
And if this happened to a 3rd world country or to an elderly who would rather have the immortality machine than this?

>>9766269
How can we radiate heat away in space? If the motor produces heat as it pulls, maybe the heat also can be added to the movement factors, for how little it may affect them, even at lightspeed propulsion.

>>9766281
If the force applied by object 3 comes from itself, then it is internal to the system of rigid bodies, and thus the center of mass does not move.

from another thread debating this:

a: Still I see a close system that at the end is going to be 0. I would like to have a video meeting with you to discuss this because Im sure you see something that I don't

b: while I discovered where the energy goes... heating up the motor of object 3, and dispersed

b: so, it gains energy from the sun, some of it goes to do work, some of it goes to heat the motor

b: heat disperses, motor pulls selectively in coordinated geometrical efforts

OP, it's been days. Many people have repeatedly try to explain to you that:
1. You are trying to violate conservation of momentum
2. This has been mathematically proven to be impossible.

It does not matter whether you add springs, motors, feathers, bells, whistles or a cat. Unless you have somehing to push against, unless you have skmething which can provide thrust (like a solar sail or a rocket engine), this thing can not and will not work.

Please understand that this is not us being stubborn or close-minded. We know how this works, you obviously don't. No matter how much you wish reality was this easy and cartoon physics worked, it doesn't. Please give it a rest and go do something else, like learning actual mechanics.

>>9766290
You radiate heat away with radiators. Black-painted hot surfaces.
Radiation DOES exert force and that has to be included in the control volume calculation.
It's so trivial that it's usually ignored but it ought to be included if you want a perfectly accurate answer. But now you have a "photon rocket" and not a reactionless propulsion system. All the moving parts contribute nothing.

Losing heat asymmetrically was the source of the Pioneer Anomaly.
>https://www.space.com/16648-pioneer-anomaly-spacecraft-mystery-solved.html

"a team of researchers calculated that the spacecraft were decelerating at a rate of about 300 inches per day squared (0.9 nanometers per second squared)."

Newton's 3rd law remains unbroken!
Measuring this infinitesimal force at a distance of 8 billion miles is a tribute to NASA's tracking network.

>>9766310
Well written!
I hope you're more convincing than I've managed to be.

>>9766313
So, we gain energy from the sun, we use that energy to heat up the motor of object 3 (radiate the rest away selectively or not) and pull. Work on point c depends on force and rope pulled, but does more work, more movement, in one direction than in the other, when objects 1&2 are together and acting as a single body.

>>9766317
Thanks. I hope OP understands that I really mean well. They are obviously very motivated and invested in this idea. And
I also hope they understand that us saying it won't work isn't trying to spoil their fun, but actually trying to help them understand the principles behind this.

If only we could explain that a willingness to learn includes a willingness to be proven wrong.

>>9766329
One last time.
The ropes and masses DO NOTHING!!!!
I cannot emphasize that enough.
The only "push" you get from the Sun is light pressure.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
Everything else is parasitic junk!

>>9766333
Since OP is still asking questions, I don't think either of us is penetrating. :(

What will happen to human civilization after we figure out self-propulsion?

>>9766380
This is not self propulsion as related to perpetum mobile, this is self propulsion as using other forms of energy to move without rockets. I think after this maybe we will parasitize the whole galaxy and infect it with our limited mindset.

>>9761290
>Normally and in passivity these objects would keep their momentum and balance out, but these are active objects that will synchronize their pulling as needed to guide the forces to not balance out, to travel through space as the premise of this post says

lmao, mah nigga what the fuck are you trying to say? Formulate your ideas properly. At the very least define your terms.

>>9766473
Saying that objects are technological objects, and after application of the force of object 3 to the string between objects 1&2, if the objects remained passive, they would continue their path and the total movement would end up zero. But if these objects at different stages pull at coordinated directions, the end result would be work done in direction x is different from work done in direction y, and direction y can be charged again, solar panels, gyroscopes, springs, hydraulics etc.

>>9766274
Object 3 at rest is as heavy/inertial as objects 1&2 at rest taken together, because in more complicated designs, object 3 is similar to objects 1&2, and when 'forward' in the desired direction of movement it will expand and allow the joined objects 1&2 to be pulled while together.

>>9764263
>>9764884
If you can skip the part that needs integrals, since it relates to the displacement of c, and use that as a blackbox that passes back and forth between equation transformations, can you proceed with the rest of the equations for all stages?

>>9766274
As silly string to emphasize stages where there is no tension and object carry on on inertia.

>>9766181
This

>>9766181
>>>9761290 (OP)
>>>9762192
>>>9762977
>>>9764263
>Here is why it does work: Work done to move c, done by motor of 3, even at the same force, as 3 pulls it, is quite a lot, seeing how 1 & 2 will have to be pulled quite hard by the tension in the strings (flexible, not elastic, not rigid). This work goes all(heat? cable plasticity?) to 3, in the x direction. This is not replied (counter force? counter work? replied as in speech?) as such when 1 & 2 are pulled on the other direction.

>>9766227
purr purr

>>9766227
>>9766667
we need integrals to solve an equation for the movement of c, but we know c moves a lot, triangle equations, and that translates to extra work of the same force, and extra movement, and, proplsionless space travel
*propleaeonless calculate my calculations

The most elaborate troll physics meme yet. I applaud you sir.

>>9766686
hey, if it's a troll, shouldnt it infect elsewhere too?

>>9766686
and if it isn't?

>>9766691
The issue is not is/isn't, fun either way. The issue is who's gonna do the CALCUlations

>>9766209
>massless
How does c center of the wires being massless make it unequal work for x y direction?

>>9766699
Computers do calculations. Humans input variables.

>>9766708
>unequal work for x y
*blinks*

>>9766209
>a massless object exerts mechanical force
Lmao

>>9766735
its apparent mass would come from the 2 objects tugging at it sideways

>>9766743
Mass is an intrinsic property that doesn't depend on force. It has it or it doesn't.

>>9766759
apparent mass as far as the motor of object 3 is concerned, and object 3 can tug at it at a steady 1g, work in the x direction, that is represented in stress of the connections between objects 1&2 and the pull from rest of objects 1&2, work in the y direction leaning towards x as the pendence of the wire changes.

>>9766764
>apparent mass
That's not a thing. Its like saying apparent energy.

>>9766782
apparent mass, for the limited duration of the force, for the limited scope of a direction and a motor attached to any object, is a thing

>>9766785
What's its mathematical definition, in terms of the actual masses and forces involved?

>>9766791
needs more grey power, itching at it,

>>9766775
blue object rest mass as combined mass of grey objects, red-redish cables as tension cables, black cables as control cables... 1 unit of distance per rope approximated, and a whole centrifuge completes in 1 unit of time. energy from solar panels or batteries, motors on all objects, and the blue object can even maintain a quasi constant 1g in all cases where a pull is needed, for the potential of human habitation directly in the structure rather than being pulled safely behind.

>>9761290
Isn't the EM energy the propulsion,,,

>>9766807
technically yes, but sometimes we need to make trades for understanding. 'no rockets' makes it clearer?

>>9766813
How does the clockwise momentum transfer forward? Assuming the blue mass is the back

>>9766794
(Asuming youre not trolling)
Why do you use made up quantities that aren't even defined?
Why did you start this thread asking for refutation, but ignore the several (very basic) reasons given why it doesn't work?
Why dont you pick up a text book and learn physics for real? It will be more fruitful than this I promise.

>>9766823
Blue pulls at tension strings, objects turn from their centrifuge path to even tighter centrifuge, and that is work around the desired movement axis, but that is applied to objects in centrifuge, while for the blue mass that is work aligned with the desired axis of motion.
After it has pulled for a while, it needs to go on inertia... which makes it not suitable for humans, ok... But grey objects are also technological objects. They pull at each other and get close, combine, and start to charge gyroscopes/springs/hydraulics to regain spin lost in the change of paths from the tug while apart centrifuging.
After they have gone on inertia for a while, blue object, now forward, pulls at the wire. Well, they both pull. Blue goes backwards through force applied counter to our final desired direction, grey goes forwards, through force AND work path, aligned in the desired direction of movement, so, in total, it will have moved more in that direction, having lost it in the tug, but having recharged it.

>>9766838
1 unit is normal to use for ease of calculations, especially when starting and needing just a successful example.
Refutations refined where the basic problem could be, and where the proof was needed the most and earliest.

>>9766851
>1 unit is normal to use for ease of calculations, especially when starting and needing just a successful example.
Its not normal to make up quantities like apparent mass. No no no. Holy shit dude, you're truly living in your own world.

>>9766850
kek

>>9766860
well, what do you call it? it is the mass as appears to object 3 and the motor pulling

>>9766850
What prevents this from bouncing back and forth, fren

>>9766860
define mass at c as 'mass as appears to the equation of counter force of the force that is pulling at the motor of object 3' cheers

>>9766865
it bounces back and forth, that is the principle, but it bounces more in one linear direction, thus producing net movement, by pull rather than by rockets

>>9766865
Or even what recharges it, momentum transfered to the blue ball can't be regained

Sounds like your centrifuge is a batter that dumps energy into the blue ball once and just kinda sputters along 'til it dies

>>9766871
solar panels recharge it, or batteries, or lasers sent from satellites closer to the sun if it can actually keep accelerating without losing fuel and can reach beyond the solar system

>>9766871
Even bouncing back and forth there's no recharge, it just slowly depletes the centrifuge battery

>>9766876
Oh so solar panels recharge the grey centrifuge? What dumps the energy back into clockwise momentum?

>>9766881
This is starting to sound like an overly complex solar sail

>>9766877
if it bounces back and forth without no net gain in movement, maybe it actually depletes the battery... but the premise is that work done in done in perpendicular direction to the centrifugal grey objects will translate in more movement of the blue object than the grey objects, in the axis we call 'forward', because blue is aligned while its motor pulls at the center of the strings.

>>9766867
Complete nonsense. You're in over your head.

>>9766863
Tha would just be the mass of the object? That would not change no matter what the forces are.

>>9766881
There are a few proposals to that. I was of the idea that objects could swap direction of rotation, or the gyroscope flipped, but it can also be that the blue object gathers the momentum and transmits it to the grey objects as the pass by. My cousin is working on that proposal to make it more sensical, or dismiss it. Still, it can work even without angular momentum, but it works better with it.

>>9766899
how sun -> go spin?

>>9766898
well, there is no actual mass, those are negligible-mass strings pulling at objects centrifuging away, but it appears as a mass to the string on blue

>>9766900
Not to mention you have to spin em up in the first place

>>9766900
>how sun -> go spin?
sun > panels > motors & weights > spin-antispin > release (from together, to eg. 1 km centrifuge away) > big slower centrifuges > pull at the center of wires where there is no apparent mass just forces

>>9766902
Supposing we have access to materials with no mass (they don't exist), a massless object cant exert a force on an object even in a theoretical sense.

>>9766912
Wouldn't that rotate the grey spheres in place rather than spin them around the center?

>>9766919
If you have two, top and bottom, for 360' (or rough intervals) you might be able to spin the grey spheres again, but that'd be a lot of mass and a lot of wasted energy

>>9766918
very light ropes compared to the masses attached

>>9766919
when the objects are close, they will gain eg 1000 revolutions per min/sec, and that would translate to 2-3 revolutions per same min/sec when they are a few kilometers away as released (gradually or abruptly) to reach the centrifuge position and become ready to pull the blue object.

>>9766946
kek, they'd only gain speed at a constant errr mass. They're dumping energy into the blue ball. What powers what's necessary to pull the grey balls closer?

>>9766940
If it is just an issue of efficiency of movement, this is still revolutionary because the alternative is shooting photons behind, or solar sails. My bet is the most efficient way to travel in interstellar space will be ion thrusters, but so far it is still rocket the only viable way to go about space, and rocket has fuel issues while this can recharge in space. Fuel issues can be partially solved by sending fuel with rail guns at many g from Earth, but how do you send fuel to the edge of the solar system? pushing it? it is heavy still... that is why we will keep aligning planets to send probes away.

>>9766958
same sun, same solar panels, motors on grey balls too, and computers also, and wifi communication between them to arrange positions and tensions.

>>9766962
Solar sails sound more efficient than your idea desu

>>9766686
It is a troll by design, even in the explanation sense, it cycles... so, if this is the best troll ever, who will do to honors of picking an icon for it?

>>9766969
solar sails are efficient and light, and can work with lasers shot at them too... but... does this mean there is a sense of discussing efficiency rather than if it can be done at all? then maybe it is not a revolution, and we need to Dyson sphere the sun and shoot lasers and reach other solar systems by light pressure.

>>9766984
I'd go with impossible

>>9766989
I'd go with this: >>9766558

Thank you for reminding me about the illusion of free will though

youtu.be/04ERSb06dOg?t=7m21s
Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of Reality
PBS Space Time

And this is not a system of least action, this is quite active pieces, taking energy from external sources, or battery, but using no rockets to propel. This is Yesether!

>>9766838
>Why dont you pick up a text book and learn physics for real? It will be more fruitful than this I promise.
Pulling anon strings is easier than picking up a text book... .)

Yanny or Laurel?

bump

>>9767739
Yanny

>>9767739
Laurel

>>9768855
bump indeed, but it is out of bumps