Ghideon

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Perhaps, having pushed off from the light one last time, and not having received resistance to moving forward, it will exceed the speed of light as much as it can push off.

Nothing wrong with ambitious goals! But given the current status of your propulsion concept I have to say that it is too early to discuss faster than light* travel. 

Regarding the explanations I'll answer later when I've had time to read and analyse the details.

*) The fact that it evidence support that it is physically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light is also a complicating factor but that is off topic for this thread

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Q2 You don't need gravity for this to happen, and it also happens horizontally with vehicles, whose engine sound chages as it approaches, passes and then recedes. Elevators tend to make broad band noise, not fixed frequency engine noise.

I was rather unclear with the intentions, sorry for that! I intended Itoero to try to answer from the point of view that gravity is involved (which it is not). I had the idea that the questions should trigger some new thoughts.

Anyway, good point regarding Q1, I did not know that.
And of course I agree on Q2 & Q3. 

15 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

1+4+5=10

That is maybe 1+x+y=10, but not 1+x+x=10

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

When you are on the move you change the gravit field since you have mass. Atoms/molecules in the atmosphere also have mass, your motion alters the position of many atoms/moleculles which changes the gravit field.

I've a few naive questions:

Question 1: Does speed of sound differ horizontally and vertically? I think answer is no but I'm not sure. 

Question 2: Suppose gravity is involved*, does direction, according to you, change the dopler effect? What should happen if gravity is involved and source of sound and any relative movement is vertical? For instance if you in the top of a building, listening to an approaching elevator. Can it be measured? Can you provide references?

Question 3: If you move to a location where gravitational constant is slightly different, how will the dopler effect change? Can it be measured? Are there any measurements available?

*) No, I do not think gravity is involved.

3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Since I am very far from the exact sciences, for me it is a very difficult task.

Agreed, an exact analysis of this is difficult but my opinion is that even a simplified analysis would be valuable. Maybe you should start by analysing and attempting to understand the analogies and concepts you actually rely on? 

I asked you to read through the posts and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence. Since that failed I have read through posts myself and summarised:
You have stated various explanations for how the saucer would be able to lift.

On 2018-11-27 at 7:29 PM, MasterOgon said:

The wing makes a fast ascending impulse, as a result of which a shock wave is formed above it, and the flying saucer begins to be drawn into the region of reduced pressure formed behind it.

and

On 2018-11-27 at 7:29 PM, MasterOgon said:

the flying saucer uses the principle of movement of birds, fish and other species of creat

and

On 2018-11-29 at 5:35 AM, MasterOgon said:

Look at what happens after I give the saucer a vertical acceleration. In some cases, it does not fall down, but flies away with good acceleration.

and

On 2018-11-29 at 5:42 PM, MasterOgon said:

If you put your palm in the water and push the water one way quickly and the other slowly, the bulk will move to where you push it harder.

and

14 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Based on the rule that the friction of calm is stronger than the friction of movement,

and

14 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

If we consider this process as a wave, then a standing wave is formed around the saucer. By creating waves in opposite directions, the saucer does the same as the acoustic levitation.

All explanations seems different and they depend on different concepts, some of them possibly contradicting each other. For instance I don't think a bird relies on friction, it is more about complex movements, power and changing the shape of the wings.

After my analysis above we seem to agree that you rely on friction and the fact that static and kinetic friction is different. Then I asked you about air and static friction and I got no valid explanation. And then you post this: (emphasis by me)

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The explanation of the effect in liquids is fundamentally different (since there is no static friction force in liquids and gases) and is based on viscous forces of friction.

You seem to have had the answer all the time, but you didn't think that this is a critical piece of information? Have you proposed a propulsion method for air, water and space (solar wind) based on a concept that does not exist in air, water and space? Maybe you need to check if the basic assumptions your ideas relies upon are correct? One possibility is to ask questions, for instance on this forum, regarding the things you need to learn before attempting to revolutionise space travel.

I think I have taken this analysis as far as I can for now. Can you please provide some kind of source as evidence that your speculative ideas are working? 

47 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

I do not understand it. Can you explain differently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation
The levitation is performed by a machine on a table, the machine lifts some small object by using sound. Levitation is not performed by a device built in to the object that is levitating.

I’ll have to do some assumptions to be able to continue the discussion.

(Why am I trying to explain your theory, isn’t that your task?)
Anyway, first I cleaned up the garbled math section you posted:

Quote

According to the law of conservation of momentum, m Δv = F Δt where m is the weight of the sink with spring on the inercoid, Δv - their acquired speed, F - force to accelerate the weight on the spring, according to the third Newton law, equal to the force of the weight on the inercoid, Δt is the time it takes for the weight to accelerate on the spring in one direction. If the magnitude of the impulse m Δv is equal in absolute value for the forward and reverse direction of acceleration of the weight, then F is greater in absolute value than Δt is smaller. When accelerating a weight in one direction with a large Δt, the force F is less than the friction force at rest, while accelerating the weight in the other direction, the force F is greater than the friction force rest and friction force of movement and the model is set in motion.

I interpret that as "friction force at rest" is the same as static friction as described here: http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/static.html :

Quote

In general, μs ≥ μk. It is harder to move a stationary object than it is to keep a moving object in motion. 

Some further information on static vs kinetic friction is available on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction :

Quote

Dry friction is a force that opposes the relative lateral motion of two solid surfaces in contact. Dry friction is subdivided into static friction("stiction") between non-moving surfaces, and kinetic friction between moving surfaces. With the exception of atomic or molecular friction, dry friction generally arises from the interaction of surface features, known as asperities

So far the analysis covers movement on solid materials. I understand how the movement works and some of the physics involved. I even made a rudimentary test by placing an office chair on a soft floor. I could move across the floor by slowly by bending forward and then quickly jerk back. (Yes, it looked ridiculous. No, I did not try to levitate)

Back to the saucer: The saucer idea you describe seems to apply the concept of static friction to vertical motion through air, so a central question for your mechanism of propulsion seems to be: Does air have static friction? I assume your answer is “yes” since you are building saucers that relies on static friction of air.
My answer is: I do not know if air have static friction, a quick study I did revealed static friction and kinetic friction only applies to solid materials.

Is my analysis correct? If so, can you provide calculations or some written English sources as evidence that your speculative ideas are working?

I suggest you read through the posts and the open questions in the thread and provide a consistent and detailed answer backed up by real evidence.

6 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

acoustic levitation

Thanks, interesting concept that I have not studied at all yet!

That said,  the little research I've had time to do displays a static device (for instance on a table) levitating some small object. How is that applicable in your saucer? Please add references for your various claims, it is time consuming to do the research needed to be able to comment on the general analogies and concepts you use.

6 hours ago, Phantom5 said:

You can see me like a one man secret service.

It gives not much persons that knows how much i have wrote.

I fail to see how this, and the other parts of your post, relates to the topic. 

4 hours ago, Carrock said:

water has the same frequency as it does in air

Your remark is correct, I was wrong. I did not think clearly and I misinterpreted an article I read about perceived pitch. My suggested analogy is incorrect.

Maybe I'm entering the discussion too late to add value but I realised that both @Strange and @Itoero can be "correct".

On 2018-11-25 at 5:34 PM, Strange said:

It is incomprehensible, why you can't understand something so simple and obvious.

You move towards the source and therefore you see more peaks and troughs per unit tine = higher frequency. You move away and you see fewer wavefronts per unit time = lower frequency.

It seems unlikely that the simple description should be impossible to understand and then I read this:

On 2018-11-14 at 5:25 PM, Itoero said:

you need to measure/observe how the wave interacts with the medium it is in

Maybe wrong analogy is used? Lets try to create something where dopler and the statement above makes sense.

Imagine that you don't know if you are above or below water. Of course not a common situation but useful for this thought experiment. You hear a sound that you know have a certain frequency from the source in air. A measurement at your location now shows that the frequency does not match the known source frequency. In this case you cannot know if the frequency has changed due to the fact that you and the source may be under water or if you and source are above water but moving relative to one another. In this case I think you have to "measure/observe the medium". Does this make sense?

I'm just trying to help, ignore the post if it only complicates the matter.

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Yes. It's just that in Russian Wikipedia there is a mathematical explanation of how this engine starts moving during an experiment.

So the Russian wikipedia page that i cannot read is supposed to support your case. And the english wikipedia page I can read does not. Maybe you can find some other reliable source that supports the mechanism your saucer depends on? Preferably an english paper.

Repeating the statement below does not help, I read it the first time:

5 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

If you put your palm in the water and push the water one way quickly and the other slowly, the bulk will move to where you push it harder.

Yes, but unless you are standing on a solid non-moving surface (the floor for instance) you will be pushed backwards when you thrust your hand forward to move water. I do not think the analogy is valid unless you are floating in the water. A more valid analogy is: sit in a canoe with a paddle. Now move the paddle back and forth. Do not lift or turn the paddle. The paddle will move some water and the canoe will move back and forth. 

Sorry, the link seems to be russian:

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Инерцоиды

Is this the same:? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive. If so, the article seems to supports my suspicion that the mechanism does not generate any lifting power:

Quote

a reactionless drive is a particular case of a propellantless drive as it is a closed system presumably in contradiction with the law of conservation of momentum and often considered similar to a perpetual motion machine...

A large number of infeasible devices, such as the Dean drive, are a staple of science fiction particularly for space propulsion.

Of course the saucer you test is traveling in air. But why does that make a difference? Very simply put (I've limited time right now) the failing devices in the link above rocks an internal mass back and forth. Your version rocks an external mass (air, water or solar wind particles) back and forth. Please describe how thrust or lift is generated. 

The formulas look garbled in my browser so I can't comment yet:

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

ccording to the law of conservation of momentum, m Δ v = F Δ t {\ displaystyle m \ Delta v = F \ Delta t}

On 11/23/2018 at 12:18 PM, quiet said:

We have seen the movie and commented it while we drink a coffee. Now, someone wait me at home.

Since you are back again on the forum, what’s the answer to my question? What is the name of the movie? 

Ok, I see no real explanation how this is supposed to work and no math, lets try another angle. You seem to have some basic equipment available, maybe a set of experiments* can be arranged?

First: Why does the saucer not lift off the ground** when you just start the engine and do not throw the saucer? What are the limiting factors according to your model? (weight, rigidity, frequency...)

Second: How can the lift, if any, be measured with equipment you have available?

Idea 1: Do you have a sensitive scale available? What happens if you run the engine in saucer while the saucer is placed on the scale? The scale should read less weight if the lifting force is generated? Then what does the scale read if you place the saucer upside down with engine running? The saucer should try to press itself down, increasing the reading. Problem here is that vibrations and any flow of air will affect measurements.

Another line of reasoning starts with these two statements:

On 2018-11-27 at 7:29 PM, MasterOgon said:

This principle is possible in virtually any environment capable of providing resistance in which waves can be created and reflected. This allows you to effectively use the resistance of the environment due to its inertness.

and

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

But if it is thrown, the oncoming flow creates resistance and the effect becomes stronger.

Also, pictures above shows a device on water.
Idea 2: Do you expect the effect you want to use is greater when the resistance is provided by a medium with greater density? If so, how about building a submersible saucer? Then it may be possible to balance the buoyancy of the saucer so it is almost neutral. Place saucer at the bottom, just heavy enough to sink, with engine running. Does it move up? Then do the opposite: reduce weight so the saucer floats, turn it upside down and start engine. Will it dive to the bottom? 
This setup has other issues, for instance that water is not compressible.

I'm not expecting this to work but may inspire or give insight why I am very sceptic about the possibility that the propulsion will work.

*) I'm aware of forum rules, maybe the thread needs to be moved for this discussion...
**) I'm assuming the saucer is supposed to take off vertically like a helicopter if you succeed with the design.

First thing: Even if we do not at all agree on the results, experiments and builds are cool!

1 hour ago, MasterOgon said:

And here you can hear the acoustic waves that create lift.

I can hear the sound but I see no lift at all. I suppose someone off-camera throws the saucer? How does the results compare to a set of experiments without the engine running?

I missed this part previously:

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The inertial propulsion https://youtu.be/pcEdpb-rIX4?t=335 was considered by many to be antigravity, because during the experiments it seemed that it did not repel anything. In the end, it was even launched into space. And there it did not work.

Your saucer uses inertial propulsion, and inertial propulsion has already ben sent to space and failed? How will your version work? 

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

If you look at the bird from the front or the fish from above, there are similarities. Flying saucer, like a bird, makes a sharp movement of the wing up and slowly lowers the wing down. Having made a sharp movement of the wing up, the bird creates a whirlwind. Slowly lowering the wing, the bird detaches from it. It is drawn on the picture . If you observe a jellyfish, it makes more complex movements, but the meaning is the same. I can't mathematically confirm this because I am not an expert. On a simplified model, it looks like this:

Thanks for your answer. I do not quite understand how a the smooth and complex movement of a bird wing is comparable to a rigid* saucer. When the saucer makes a quick movement of the wing up, the force required to move the air above the saucer results in a force that presses the saucer towards the ground. 

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The first flying saucer is an umbrella plane that jumped on the ground.

Maybe this is the one**:

How will the saucer you propose be able to behave differently than the car above? 

So far the discussion focus on movement through air, what is the purpose of using the failed idea above when more useful designs exist: 

32 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

The disadvantage of this engine in the mechanical design,

Another disadvantage is that it looks kind of uncomfortable to ride in the vehicle.

*) I assume that the saucer is rigid and not constructed like a jellyfish

**) Found a movie; first few seconds of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYhwLnIzSEY

2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

There is a photo and electric sail to perceive the resistance of the space environment.

Thanks, I don't think that was obvious from your description above. 

3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The work of the wing in the air or water can be described as follows. The wing makes a fast ascending impulse, as a result of which a shock wave is formed above it, and the flying saucer begins to be drawn into the region of reduced pressure formed behind it. An annular vortex is formed under the wing, which follows it by inertia. Then the wing begins to make a reverse movement downward at low speed, and the flying saucer pushes off from the whirlwind, which catches up with it, carrying it upwards.

The saucer does not look like a fish or a bird to me, maybe a jellyfish is a more useful analogy? Can you describe the mechanism in more detail, preferably including some math? I fail to see how the saucer would be able to leave the ground.  

Hello @MasterOgon.

Is something missing from the description? I've highlighted two statements; they seem to contradict each other? (emphasis by me)

27 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

Flying saucer is a reusable air / underwater / spacecraft.

27 minutes ago, MasterOgon said:

Thus, the flying saucer uses the principle of movement of birds, fish and other species of creatures moving in a homogeneous environment. This principle is possible in virtually any environment capable of providing resistance in which waves can be created and reflected. This allows you to effectively use the resistance of the environment due to its inertness.

How does this work in the vacuum of space?

Thanks! Lets continue the discussion:

1 hour ago, JOSES said:

As it stands now there is no single force capable of stopping only the earths motion

I did not suggest that the earth can be stopped. I asked in context of the situation described in your paper:

13 hours ago, JOSES said:

supposing the Earth stops its Rotation and Revolution, there will be no time on earth

Please describe in detail what physical mechanism you refer to in your paper and how that mechanism works. Not how the earth will be stopped but the effect the stopping will have on time. Or, at least, please answer: 
Supposing the Earth stops its Rotation and Revolution: Does that, according to your theory, have an effect only on the time for all all living things and non-living things earth?

1 hour ago, JOSES said:

For the Earth to stop its rotation and revolution it implies the sun(light) would have been no more.

No. Earth would continue to rotate around its own axis if the sun would suddenly disappear. 

Thanks for your reply! I would like some furhter clarifications regarding this before moving on to other parts of your paper. The following two statements seems incompatible:

1: from your paper

10 hours ago, JOSES said:

supposing the Earth stops its Rotation and Revolution, there will be no time on earth. Similarly all living things and non-living things (contain molecules and atoms that are in motion) will cease to change/transform when there is no motion externally or within them.

2: from your reply

10 hours ago, JOSES said:

The Universe also keeps expanding (moving) hence change /transformation continues..

I have three alternatives*, a,b and c. Are one of them correct or do you have some other explanation?

a: When earth rotation and revolution stops accordijng to (1) it only has an effect on the time for allvon earth. 
b: (1) is more of a general analogy or example; time for things on earth and in other  places do not experience any change until all movement, expansion etc has stopped in the whole universe. Stopping only earth rotation and revolution will have no effect at all on earth living things and non-living things. 
c: (1) is not stating what was intended and needs to be edited.

Note: I do not say that any of the alternatives are what I believe happens or is something mainstream science suggests. It is only my attempt at understanding the consequences of specific statements in your paper.

12 minutes ago, JOSES said:

Our Earth spins continuously, supposing the Earth stops its Rotation and Revolution, there will be no time on earth. Similarly all living things and non-living things (contain molecules and atoms that are in motion) will cease to change/transform when there is no motion externally or within them.

Hello. I have two initial questions:
When things are sent into space and therefore no longer follow earth rotation, they will cease to change/transform? Do you have a reference for the claim?
How did matter transform to create planet earth if no change/transformation is possible before the rotation of earth?

You will have to provide some references or evidence for your speculations. For instance, what physical mechanism allows for this:

On 2018-11-23 at 8:44 PM, Rajiv Naik said:

creating universes and blackholes is entry Pt. to vaccume where information disapears with infinite speed.

I'm usually restrictive when op only has a link and no discussion, but I gave this one a chance. Unfortunately I've not yet studied all the formulas used in the paper so I can't comment on the math; "dE" is for instance not defined. (Maybe a reader with more knowledge is supposed to know the definition)
This caught my eye:

Quote

Now we want to calculate a black hole with Cosmic Microwave Radiation inside (T_cmb = 2.725 K) {this gives a maximum possible radius of an universe}

Why does a universe have a maximum possible radius? 

9 hours ago, quiet said:

We have seen the movie

Ok! What is the name of the movie? 

Question: According to you (or the film maker) the laser does not hit the second wall; where does the photons emitted by the laser go?

11 hours ago, quiet said:

I'm thinking of an acceleration that if it were done with respect to a planet, it would achieve that the ship reached 99% of C with respect to the planet. After that turn off the engine and allow straight and uniform movement.

 @swansont and @Strange already gave good explanations. But I'll try to address this from another point of view within the context of the setup. You seem expect that experiments run before and after acceleration have different outcome. To me that seems to imply that the light source (laser) must have some kind of "memory" of beeing accelerated. But if nature would behave like that it would have strange consequences. Think of what happens if the space lab in the movie receives a spare laser from a service spaceship? If that spaceship was starting from another location and accelerated differently, the spare laser would "remember" a different acceleration than the the original laser and therefore behave in a different way. 
It seems like the movie maker have a serious plot hole?