Propulsion and Relativity

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: yuppa


If you freeze time for that object and thus stop it moving... what will happen? Well, it will zoom off into space if the motion of the Earth at that moment is away from it... as Time is stopped you have no momentum, no motion. The thing just sits there and the Earth moves away from it.

do the experiment 12 hours later aaaaand the object gets smushed into the ground... except it probably cant get smushed since time is stopped for the object and no movement is possible, so it buries itself, the ground kinda forced around it.

Typical response really to tell me i am stupid when iv basically got you in a corner on something you THINK you know about but really dont

Ah wait till im not responding to post. typical. I SAID the EARTH would MOVE and the object stays STILL. You STILL ARENT READING CAREFULLY. MASS of said OBJECT still applies and it does not PHASE OUT. SO its going to be hit by something as i said earlier.

Even if the machine itself isnt moving the earth and object on it are and at such a high speed it will cause massive kinetic damage to whatever is in the way. I also said you are trying to hard and making yourself look stupid because of your LACK OF COMPREHENSION and READING not because your Opinion was wrong.

a reply to: yuppa

Have them all bookmarked and read them several times, and downloaded quite a few recommended PDF's as well. love the all the hint and information.

a reply to: ErosA433

If time is stopped for an object, it is also in the realm of instant travel imo.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

www.researchgate.net...

This is dependent on Puthoff's theory of gravitation as a zero-point electromagnetic interaction, which is (to say the least) very heavily disputed by many more mainstream physicists.

a reply to: mbkennel

Theoretical potential for propulsion without rocketry.

arxiv.org...

Abstract. We study the dynamics of extended test bodies in flat FriedmannRobertson-Walker
spacetimes. It is shown that such objects can usually alter their
inertial mass, spin, and center-of-mass trajectory purely through the use of internal
deformations. Many of these effects do not have Newtonian analogs, and exist despite
the presence of conserved momenta associated with the translational and rotational
symmetries of the background.


.....

In principle, this effect allows piloted spacecraft to partially modify their trajectories
simply by rearranging internal masses. A particularly elegant example of this is a
strategy whereby artificial satellites can change their orbital parameters by cleverly
manipulating tethered masses [7]. Different parts of the body effectively “push” or
“pull” on local gradients in the gravitational field. In the relativistic context, test bodies
interact with the background spacetime using their full stress-energy tensors rather than
just their mass distributions. The control space available to alter trajectories using
extended body effects is therefore greatly enlarged. This has a number of interesting
consequences if very large stresses and internal momenta can be maintained.

Translation: no the laws of physics are not wrong, and momentum is still conserved as expected through the Noether theorems, but in General Relativity there is a difference between a point particle mass (which would require expulsion of momentum) and extended bodies.

Now the caveat is that extremely large 'internal momenta' and energies are required, which in General Relativity is a code phrase for stuff like "neutron stars at a good fraction of c" type of energies, and explicitly in the paper, length scales of galactic superclusters.

For metric-engineering and propulsion, we would need a mechanism to enormously (!!!!!) amplify engineerable scale materials and energies into gravitationally significant sizes. And as always this is the huge gap, and no doubt it requires mechanistic knowledge of the correct merger of quantum field theory and gravitation, which nobody knows about for sure.

a reply to: yuppa

Yuppa,

On the note of Tesla what if I told you I'd found some limited evidence that his flying kitchen stove VTOL craft really could have been built and probably was?

What if I told you that the basic version of it didn't even require any sort of electrical effects to lift itself and a human and travel around at a pretty good clip for 15 minutes to a half hour?

I'm finding more and more evidence that his turbine design running on fossil fuels and built the right way could pretty easily have generated some fairly amazing thrust output. Would've been loud as hell doing it that way but I suspect that there was more to it than this.

The more I learn, the more I am of the belief that he really built it and really flew it around pretty extensively.

Also yuppa you should check out the comments by user bobsuruncle, especially about tabletop particle decelerators!

One thing that is striking me more and more is that something like that might be akin to schauberger implosion and quite possibly able to do really interesting things including release lots of energy.

Nochzwei,

If you stop time, your ship will still experience tidal forces with Earth. Time has nothing to do with supposed anti gravity. First think what gravity is and then start working on inventing its 'anti' part.
Good luck!

)

originally posted by: greenreflections
Nochzwei,

If you stop time, your ship will still experience tidal forces with Earth. Time has nothing to do with supposed anti gravity. First think what gravity is and then start working on inventing its 'anti' part.
Good luck!

)

Lol its a done deal. read the thread in my signature

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: Nochzwei

negating gravity or anti-gravity is completely pointless.
gravity is a result of mass.

Agree, or mass itself is twisted spacetime resulting in our perception of gravity, either way, an anti-gravity drive is a misnomer. The Alcubierre Drive for example is envisioned to accelerate on a a free-fall geodesic by contracting spacetime in front of the drive and allowing it to expand behind whilst remaining fully compliant with Einsteins equations.

If you stop time ??

what does it mean ? does it mean you stop counting ?

please understand, time is not a physical thing, same like good or bed are not...
what time is, time is counting of regular periodic appearance of any kind... heartbeat, atom radiation, clicks of something.

there is no time as substance in the universe, time is a made up thing for us. for the theory...
there is therefore no such thing as space-time or such thing.
this is a made up stuff by people who thought they discovered something, but they have not !
time does not exist in a physical sense!
sorry Einstein, your ideas are based on your unknowingness back in the 19 hunderets.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: greenreflections
Nochzwei,

If you stop time, your ship will still experience tidal forces with Earth. Time has nothing to do with supposed anti gravity. First think what gravity is and then start working on inventing its 'anti' part.
Good luck!

)

Lol its a done deal. read the thread in my signature

I wish you've made an introduction to your videos in words. What's the catch?

And why you against space-time bending? How else you explain planetary and celestial orbits?

Thanks

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: Nochzwei

negating gravity or anti-gravity is completely pointless.
gravity is a result of mass.

Agree, or mass itself is twisted spacetime resulting in our perception of gravity, either way, an anti-gravity drive is a misnomer. The Alcubierre Drive for example is envisioned to accelerate on a a free-fall geodesic by contracting spacetime in front of the drive and allowing it to expand behind whilst remaining fully compliant with Einsteins equations.

einstein's equations are a load of poppycock and so is the alcuberie drive

a reply to: KrzYma

mostly you are right , but time is indeed physical as it is intinsically coupled to dark matter, which is nothing but electrons in the time domain. go here www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: greenreflections
Nochzwei,

If you stop time, your ship will still experience tidal forces with Earth. Time has nothing to do with supposed anti gravity. First think what gravity is and then start working on inventing its 'anti' part.
Good luck!

)

Lol its a done deal. read the thread in my signature

I wish you've made an introduction to your videos in words. What's the catch?

And why you against space-time bending? How else you explain planetary and celestial orbits?

Thanks

Catch is achieving anti gravity thru time dilation, which agrees with the gordon novel video from seven years earlier than the ark video. gordon novel also says in his video. to negate gravity , you have to negate time.

Planets follow the time and dark matter compression curves around their suns or stars. The space is not bent per se, only the time and dark matter compression curves are bent.

a reply to: Nochzwei
Many scientist think Einstein was a giant. So I am all for them testing Einsteins theories to the max. And if they all fall on their faces because his theories are wrong, the sooner the better.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Nochzwei
Many scientist think Einstein was a giant. So I am all for them testing Einsteins theories to the max. And if they all fall on their faces because his theories are wrong, the sooner the better.

We now know Newton's theory was wrong, yet we still use it and still consider Newton a great scientist.

That's because Einstein's theory ends up being the same as Newton's theory in the limiting case, so it's still right in that sense and only wrong when you go beyond that limiting case.

Likewise, if Einstein's theory turns out to be wrong, it still appears to be right in the limiting cases where we've tested it so far, and any new theory that replaces it will need to deal with that just as Einstein had to deal with Newton's theory.

So yes Einstein's theory may not be exactly correct in every respect and probably isn't, and will probably be replaced by a better theory someday, but it's close enough to being right that this idea that "they all fall on their faces" is quite ludicrous and fails to recognize how consistent with observation the theory is.

Nochzwei doesn't even understand Einstein's theory so he's in no position to criticize it, but of course that doesn't stop him.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Meh....not a fan of gordon novel.

originally posted by: [post=21200710]Arbitrageur
Nochzwei doesn't even understand Einstein's theory so he's in no position to criticize it, but of course that doesn't stop him.

Lol, You know more about my understanding than me, eh. i do understand it but don't waste time with all the bollocks in it.

a reply to: Nochzwei

You clearly don't understand unit analysis... let alone GR or SR based on your earlier postings. you do not show any kind of eloquence or give any substance to your arguments...

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

You clearly don't understand unit analysis... let alone GR or SR based on your earlier postings. you do not show any kind of eloquence or give any substance to your arguments...

Oh really, how very clever of you