Ghideon

I got curious and checked the second link. In the beginning it states Paper Presented by Ray Tomes to Natural Philosophy Alliance. Natural Philosophy Alliance on google takes me to (https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Natural_Philosophy_Alliance) That wiki also says: Maybe it's better to present the evidence here, how the theory makes far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory.

I did not manage to understand all of the descriptions, but some of it sounds like some variant of Zeno's paradoxes; wikipedia.org/Zeno's_paradoxes/Achilles_and_the_tortoise Are you suggesting that due to limitations in formal treatments of the mathematics* it must follow that gravity physically must drop to zero at some distance? When I apply (my rather limited) skill I do not see the issues with the formulas. Also; is this some kind of general law you are suggesting? There are other equations that are dependant of range, for instance Coulomb’s Law. *) for limits, infinity, real numbers and other concepts in OP

Good idea, got me thinking. I would probably start by looking into research on Water in Earth's mantle and maybe extrapolate or make up something "plausible-sounding" scenario. By "plausible" I mean something that sounds reasonable to the audience of the fictional writing. Here is a picture from theguardian.com that might illustrate what I mean: Important note: I haven't checked the sources for scientific correctness, my intention at this time is only to post something that might inspire something fictional.

Welcome to speculations, where one may also boldly go where no man has gone before. But please provide some kind of model and math describing what you want to discuss. My version of the universal translator seems incapable of translating the post to Federation Standard English.

The issues can be put into two groups and may be discussed separately. First part: I already* applied your math and your assumptions in earlier posts and highlighted the issues. May i suggest that you address those issues now? They shows that the equations and/or basic assumptions are wrong. Since those issues and equations are independent of how the cylinders works internally, as described in my analysis, you can provide answers without going into hydraulics and flow fluids. Second: Thanks for the response. Since we agree that fluid moves through the system, how come the equations presented in the idea* fails to take this important fact into account? I'll make some additional drawings hopefully later today, if necessary. *) link for convenience comment-1098947 **) every presented version of the idea, as far as I can tell

(One of several issues highlighted, bold by me) Have you seen impact craters? (I'll suggest this post being moved to an appropriate place)

Here is an attempt at showing some basic flow of fluid in hydraulics. Two pistons with different area in a simplified setup, connected via a thinner pipe. Somewhere along the pipe there is a flow gauge. In the right piston there is a pressure gauge*. There are three scenarios**. The first scenario is stationary. In the second scenario enough force is used so that the mass m is moving vertically at constant speed. The third scenario is again stationary. Any fluid is flowing from left to right cylinder is passing the flow gauge. In scenario 1 and 3 the registered flow will be zero, forces balances the mass m. The gauge will register a flow > 0 in scenario 2. @esposcar: according to you there is no flow of fluid in scenario 2, the gauge should register no fluid passing, how is that possible? *) Not yet used, added for later use depending on answers. **) I try to not include unnecessary details at this point, such details include, but are not limited to: Between 1 and 2 (and also between 2 and 3) there's acceleration of the mass m. Forces F are not equal. Pressures P are not equal. Mass of fluid os not shown.

When the excavator piston is extended, how do you think the hydraulic oils is moved inside the system? Teleportation? How about addressing the issues I've already told you about?

By now several different* issues highlighted, I have tried to use both logic and some Math. May i suggest that you address those issues before asking for more issues to be pointed out? Note my earlier comments, the device can not work as described and there are issues independent of how the cylinders works internally. Sorry, my bad, I used a small quote from the page and included a link as reference. My intention was not to suggest that all content or pictures on the page was of good quality. I should probably have used another source in this case or checked the whole page for quality issues before referencing it, I did not intend that other parts of the page should be used. Sorry @studiot for confusing the discussion. Including the obvious one that reactionless device is not possible, regardless of how it is constructed.

Can't you at least disclose part of the idea here?

One* issue is missing the mass on top of each cylinder when calculating acceleration on each side. Those masses are accelerated upwards then pistons are moving. I repeat: remove the numbers and use symbols. *) There are many more issues ...

If I interpret "a sufficient sized gravity well" as "close to a black hole" then a short* attempt to explain would be: For an observer far away from the black hole the time would seem to slow down for the individual heading towards the black hole. When the individual is close to the event horizon of the black hole the distant observer would see individual age slower and slower; time "almost" freezes but it would not seem to stop completely**. But to the individual close to the black hole the time still runs as usual, a watch would seem to run at normal speed with time passing at one second per second in that frame. As far as I know, when the individual close to the black hole looks up, the incoming light would look blue shifted and distant events would seem to happen faster. For more details the concept of proper time might be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time *) The math of GR including Schwarzschild coordinates, Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates and more explains details. But I better leave those topics to other forum members with more knowledge. **) There are also red shift and other effects due to strong gravitation, out of scope for this simple post

Good explanation. +1 Note that the photon is not a valid frame of reference in relativity. As far as I know the math of SR and GR does not describe what is happening from the photons point of view.

The above is a key issue when analyzing this setup. The complete system is supposed* to accelerate because work done by one part is less than work done by the other part. Acceleration to the right requires: [math]W_{right}>0, W_{left}>0[/math] [math]W_{right} - W_{left} > 0[/math] Then by reducing the negative impact of the left cylinder so that [math]W_{left}=0[/math] we have [math]W_{right} - 0 > 0[/math] [math]W_{left}=0[/math] could be achieved by [math]D=0[/math] so that [math]W = F * D = F * 0 = 0[/math] Which implies that the system should work using one cylinder if it works with two. Working with the above might help to highlight issues with the basic assumptions. Note the earlier issue where a one cylinder setup was rejected (quoted below for convenience). First an agreement: confirmation requested response: How can the standalone cylinder move in the opposite direction? Then some hesitation: And then rejection of the one-cylinder case: and *) Again, according to interpretations of the descriptions, not according to Newton.

Show the math of this specific part without any unnecessary things. Do not use numbers. Use letters to show the formulas for the two sides. Then we will check what happens when we remove the "loosing" side of the equation.

(bold by me) This is a more interesting discussion, it can be analysed without going into details about the internals of the cylinders. If i get the math correctly there is a left and a right side and the amount of acceleration the system will generate is based on the difference of the "work" done on each side. So if one side does zero work then you have the maximum amount of acceleration. Or from the bold text above, of one pascal equation is zero.

Please respond to the issue regarding the drilled hole; why does it not matter where the hole is drilled? Then why is the result not compatible with mainstream physics? Please also review the issues I raised earlier. The rig should work with only one cylinder if your idea is working as you describe.

If you drill a hole in the bottom the cylinder will be drained faster than if you drill for instance halfway up on the side. Gravity and density of the fluid have an impact Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_law First one have to understand enough physics and what the math is supposed to describe. What if the mathematic formulas and calculations are correct but applied incorrectly?

Here is another description of the flow: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html: You have posted in speculations section of this forum, where certain rules apply.

No, this is speculation. You have to show how the system works. When the pistons reach the stoppers are the fluid in the same location as initially, or has the fluid moved? But Ok, here is one: from: https://www.hwhcorp.com/ml57000-012-ch1.htm

Then you will have to account for that: -The level of fluid will rise in the cylinders and since gravity is included this affects the force required. -When force is applied the fluid will have to be accelerated since it is moving through the cylinder. The fluid will gain momentum. Or, explain why these effects can be neglected.

Isn't it more obscure? Because in a real experiment one would have to account for the turbulence in the system. That is probably not an easy task to calculate. Next: Is the fluid in the cylinders massless?

Why use propellers? How will the analysis of the device differ from when magnets were used?

The first that I can think of in the above context is Curling. I never think of Curling for four years and then during the winter Olympics I watch lots of it. I think it depends on the production; usually skilled commenters analyse and describe the intriguing details of the game. The same could be said about biathlon. I don't watch much sports frequently but probably I've spent most time on motorsports and Ice hockey (both on TV). Where I grew up Ice Hockey and motorsports were common activities and it probably had an impact. But now-days I believe I'm drawn more to big championships and events rather than specific sports.

While waiting for an updated model with math to investigate I reread some posts. Here is another source of confusion that needs to be addressed. The one-cylinder analysis I used to highlight issues: (bold by me in the quotes) First an agreement: confirmation requested response: How can the standalone cylinder move in the opposite direction? Then some hesitation: And then rejection of the one-cylinder case: and Again; please supply a consistent description of how the device is designed to work. Of course devices like this cannot work. To be able to answer what is wrong with this specific idea one has to have a consistent description of the idea.