# Ghideon

Senior Members

245

36 Good

## Profile Information

• Location
Sweden
• College Major/Degree
M.Sc. Computer Science and Engineering
• Favorite Area of Science
Physics

## Recent Profile Visitors

1260 profile views

1. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

Ok, lets move on! The result from my previous post was that air (A) has a momentum P in one direction and Object B has momentum P in the opposite direction. Then, let the momentum P of air A by some means of interaction* be able to affect object B, immediately or at some time later. The maximum amount of the momentum P that can be transferred from A to B is, not surprising, P. The result is still conservation of momentum for the system consisting of A and B; A and B are now at rest again relative to the starting position. Do you agree? Next post I'll try to get time to include an image, the explanation is maybe unnecessary complicated. *) How the interaction is possible or the physical phenomenon(s) involved is not important now, it could be collisions, draft, drag, turbulence, friction or other. Only important thing is that the interaction follows the laws of physics (conservation of momentum) and that no external forces are involved. Any losses is also neglected at this time. B is not allowed to perform any actions that may affect momentum or movements.
2. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

Ok! Let’s say we have an object “B”. Object B is surrounded by air. Initially B is at rest relative to the air and the air is free from movements. There are no external forces on the air or the object. At this time the sum of momentum, “P” is zero in the system consisting of air and object B. Now the object B pushes some amount of air*, let’s call it “A”. Conservation of momentum states that total P is still zero. Therefore the momentum of the pushed air is equal to the momentum of object B. Do you agree? I will not analyse the rest of your post at this time, it is not yet required. *) Note that the shape, mass, speed etc of the object B or air A is not important at this stage. It is not important where the air will go yet. It is not important how air molecules interact.
3. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

I would not go as far as saying meaningless. A lot of progress in various areas are made by extrapolating or making valid assumptions, testing ideas and so on. In this case however, once a analogy or explanation is presented it is rather vague or lacks details. I then try to connect the dots and figure out what the explanation is supposed to tell. If my knowledge is not enough about the concept I try to find reliable sources. Then the main problem arises; all information from scientific sources (scientific papers etc) confirms the opposite of your claims. There seems to be no room for new laws of physics in the scientific community regarding common concept such as drag, friction, turbulence, water and other areas covered so far on the four pages. When it is impossible to find any material at all supporting something it is maybe because the idea is wrong. Since the moderators have let this thread stay open I have no problem to continue the discussion as long as I learn something new* and there is still some hope that you are prepared to learn a few things. That said, how abut trying a new approach (again...), lets remove each and every thing that adds complexity and create refutations (or support, even though I strongly doubt that will be the outcome) based on a minimum set of things. Ok? Again, as stated in my previous attempt this will be moving forward at a limited pace, initially there's no need for a saucer or anything, my analysis will only use this: Are you familiar with conservation of momentum? You don't have to explain it, just state if you know about the concept so it can be used as a starting point in my analysis. I have limited time to move ahead in the wrong direction. *) or new ways to express or explain things I already knew ,quite common in this topic.
4. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

It has been refuted in great detail in my post above. Inverting and cropping the image does not help, it is still invalid as explained in the detailed analysis. Here is the conclusion again:
5. ## choose gender option

Why not use the bio field for gender (or other details) that individual members want to tell? "72 years old retired male carpenter ..."

8. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

Interesting post with new details! Good question. My quick answer is that I think it is possible to do an initial analysis without detailed mathematics. I'll have to do some reading before I can get back with valid comments to continue the discussion. +1 for bringing up VRS. I did not know that about helicopters!

10. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

That may indeed be the case depending on the purpose of the examples. Some of the examples are excellent at showing issues with the saucer design. Unfortunately none of the examples supports a successful use of the design of the saucer propulsion in air or space (or water). Correct. I do not have to take everything into account, only enough details to show that the saucer seems to contradict the known laws of physics*. It is your job to explain points with enough details so that an analysis is possible. What I try to do is to keep only necessary details to do an analysis. If, for instance, if it follows from the description of the propulsion that momentum is not conserved for the system, then analysing turbulence or every air molecule in detail is not necessary. Good point, but an exact model is not necessary initially. I think you just have to create a model that is slightly better than the ones I have tried in this thread. By better I mean including more parameters or more concepts that better explains the saucer. Not analogies or examples, but more vectors, flows or whatever you need to make the thing lift. If your model includes more of the details needed and is better at predicting that the saucer, as designed, can fly then we can compare that model the laws of physics and to the simplified model I posted. Unfortunately you have not yet used that understanding to present an explanation that can be analysed from a physics/scientific point of view. If "result" equals the videos posted in this tread they unfortunately have limited scientific value. I have already explained that in earlier posts. *) I have also stated that aerodynamics is not my day job; errors in my analysis are always an option!
11. ## Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

The last posts are a slight improvement since it describes air, but still there are problems. Let's see: No comment, wrong language in picture. A flying bullet is it is affected by air resistance, that is correct. Why a new analogy again? You tell me, bullet and gun is your analogy. It seems reasonable to assumed that the pressure will somehow equalise, I have not modelled the dynamics of a slowing bullet I do not know. How? By what force? Was the bullet fired straight up, slowing due to gravity and air resistance and then falling down back to the gun? I have not modelled a bullet so I do not know how you believe that. Show your calculations of your bullet model. That’s cool, doubt and reasoning may bring new ideas forth. But doubt is not enough, show how your calculations and models that are better at predicting the behaviour of the saucer. Since I have not used a bullet fired from a gun analogy I had no reason to include a bullet and gas molecules in the calculation. I tried to model your saucer in a simplified way and in that model drag due to air resistance was included. Drag does account for air resistance. If you have a more precise model show the applicable formulas for a comparison. I used simple model to show that even in a simplified case it was impossible for the saucer to fly by using the suggested propulsion. If you believe differently then show how it works. Momentum is conserved. The air moves since some of the momentum of the bullet was transferred to the air. Further than what? How much further? This is not in any way a correct analogy. It is not a correct description of a shock wave. It is not a description of the saucer propulsion. If you are curious about blast waves ask a question in a separate thread. Why are you continuously adding new and invalid analogies?