'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

a reply to: AlongCamePaul

1g=9.82 m/s^2 This apply no matter how far from anything you are. Just like 1cm=0.39 inch regardless if you are on Earth or in deep space. The unit "g" is just using Earths natural pull as a reference. 1g is what we feel standing on Earth. An object with the weight 1kg here on Earth, will show 0.5 kg if you put the same object on a scale in 0.5g, 2kg in 2g etc. In orbit, the weight is 0 because there is zero g. The danger with high g is that everything inside you appears to be very heavy. Every cell and every molecule is suddenly pushing inside you as if they are super heavy.

Calling it "Earth g" is like saying "Earth meter" or "Earth N". We do, as of now, not know if any other civilisasions are using their home planet as their reference, but I think we could be safe for a couple of years in using g without getting confused about what planet systems g we are talking about.

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

G force is a resultant of proximity. In deep space light years from mass structures G force would be equivalent to 0.

Of course near interstellar bodies Gravitation is increased, thats how we sling shot things.

you misunderstand what I mean by inertial force.

there are may different derivatives of the formulas equation for different occasions. Gravitation being the least important when you have a working impulse reactor. ask the aliens, why they can zoom out of our atmosphere like gravity doesn't exist.

No, G force is the result of any force acting on an object, such as acceleration. I think you misunderstand the term, it does not require gravity.

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
I had an invention, much like one would call a zero point reciprocating device derived from a portion of the 1st laws formula, the result of this would produce a perpetual rotation or what one would call a free energy device.

Oh, one of those.

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul

With that said, I have learned these laws and they can certainly be bent by unknown processes. They should be used as a guide not fact.

I bent the 1st law of thermodynamics my senior year in college, My college professor kept saying my formula was wrong but couldn't tell me where or why it was flawed, he said he'd never seen it used in such a way.

With that said, there is certainly plenty head way and discoveries to be made with resonant frequency magnetic wave forms, and impulse redirective propulsion systems.

However I don't believe relying on solely solar power will provide enough of a power source to reach such velocities, unless the vessels has found a means to amplify its output without increasing the required input.

Well that quote just proved the 1st law of Thermodynamics is correct......reading it was a total waste of energy

a reply to: neoholographic

Great thread!

Thanks!

It's great to see a Thread like this on the first page of 'new' threads instead of the usual rubbish about 'gays' this or that...

a reply to: stratsys-sws

But doesnt that law say you cant really waste energy, only transform it?

a reply to: Floke

Hi Floke,

You're absolutely right, energy can neither be created or destroyed, however.... if you transform it without use or purpose it's a waste

Cheers
Robbie

Nowhere in the article or in relative reports does it say the "EM Drive" works.

I know ATS is a sensationalist conspiracy forum. But, posting patent lies should be prohibited.

a reply to: Floke

If that were the case black holes would be measured In G's, Newton meters, and watts...

Instead they are measured in solar masses, more specifically in relation to our sun's solar mass.

Earth Gravity is a function of time, we are just beginning to understand deep space time flux phenomenon.

Just because our Earth's system exhibits a gravitational constant of 32.2ft/s doesn't mean the rest of the universe is governed to that rate of gravitational acceleration. This is why I use earth G's in parallel to distinguish.

The moons gravitational pull is roughly 1/8th of the earth's but that figure is in respect to to the earth's gravitation because that is the only reference point we have.

Einstein's theory of relativity works until it doesn't. A prime example of this is time distortion. Im sure you've heard about the synchronized watches displaying two different times after one has traveled at some high rate of speed it is the same with gravity.

a reply to: neoholographic

Four hours or four days to fly to the moon. What’s the difference? What makes four days? Fact is our leaders don’t want to fly to the moon.
Maybe we could speed up a space ship by factor 10 but there is certainly a limit to what our body can survive.
Maybe once we will use the moon as a space ship, who knows. Because the moon surely is not what she seems to be.
www.evawaseerst.be...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

G force is a resultant of proximity. In deep space light years from mass structures G force would be equivalent to 0.

Of course near interstellar bodies Gravitation is increased, thats how we sling shot things.

you misunderstand what I mean by inertial force.

there are may different derivatives of the formulas equation for different occasions. Gravitation being the least important when you have a working impulse reactor. ask the aliens, why they can zoom out of our atmosphere like gravity doesn't exist.

No, G force is the result of any force acting on an object, such as acceleration. I think you misunderstand the term, it does not require gravity.

When I read it you are right, but that is not what I meant

I abbreviated G force in a sense to mean gravitational force, because as we know gravitational forces weaken the further you move away from an object.

now the other G force the one exhibited while accelerating/ Decelerations and or changing direction, that is what I would call an inertial force, as this can act independently of gravitational force.

just for kicks what is the formula for the gravitational relationship between two objects? something like M(G2 - G1)^2 / (r2-r1)^2

its been a few monthes, I'll have to pull out the books here in a bit to give the old brain a good jog.

a reply to: network dude

Wouldnt be the first time I've read that physicists have discovered super materials or new discoveries which go against natural physical laws

a reply to: AlongCamePaul


Yes gravity is not constant in the universe. But the unit "g" is. If a spaceship is accelerating 9.82m/s^2, you feel at home no matter if you are heading to Mars or in between galaxies.

a reply to: Floke
Agreed.

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul


just for kicks what is the formula for the gravitational relationship between two objects? something like M(G2 - G1)^2 / (r2-r1)^2

It's F = G*(M1*M2/R^2)

F = Force
G = Gravitational Constant
M1 = Mass One
M2 = Mass Two
R = Distance between the two centres of mass

G = 6.673×10^11 N · (m/kg)^2

Not sure why that's applicable here though, we're talking about inertia not gravity.

a reply to: Nibbles

In your spacesuit you would have a nice stinky.

But as the fart leaves your body, pushing you forward, it would hit the inside of your spacesuit, pushing it the other way. Therefore, you would be pressed against your spacesuit's front without the suit moving an inch.

a reply to: sapien82

There you are wrong!

Maybe you are talking about metamaterials which seem to make things "invisible" - but the underlying laws of physics are not disabled or broken. Maybe a little circumvented, I would say.

AFAIK, no known physical law was being broken by new experiments or theoretical ideas in the last 50-80 years.
I said "broken", not "outdated", because relativity outdated newtons gravity laws, which are still valid in case of low-gravtitational environments and such.

originally posted by: Nibbles
Oooer...

Hoping with 4 hours getting to the moon that the first vessels will not be manned???

Just a quick calculation here : If the average distance from the Earth to the moon is around 384,403 km (semi-major axis)

Then that means that the speed for travelling would be roughly 96,000 km per hour.... Thats a hell of a lot of G force?

creation.com...

But then again, maybe I am wrong?

Plus, I am wondering how the craft would actually land without crashing flying at those speeds?



Kindest respects

Nibs

a reply to: neoholographic

Hey Nibbs, I might be wrong but gravitational forces are only relevant when near planetary bodies no? I'm not an expert by any means and I probably should have looked this up before posting (I'm feeling lazy) but I believe - perhaps wrongly, that in the dead of space, G forces would not apply.

This is a funny news. It could be fun to find something special! They detect a trust, but it doesn't fit with the old article authors theories. The new article authors seem to think that the movement follow the heat flux theories, they try in vacuum (vacuum on earth are never empty) but manage to see the trust. So, now there only one things left to do. Try again, again and again, with slight change each time.

May be if it's don't fit both group theories, they just didn't get it right both of them?

Case open, to follow!

Using solar power is great, in close proximity to the sun. Going between stars might prove more difficult. As far as four days to the moon, thats some G's. Halfway there accelerating, the other half decelerating. The highest speed interim being determined by acceptable G load. Less for humans, more for instruments.

Whats the rush?