# Flying saucer. Picture, project of a spacecraft

## Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

center of mass

I wanted to say mass and not the center of mass.

This process can be seen in a cup of coffee when there is foam. If you make a movement with a spoon, then two vortices form behind it. When the spoon stops, whirlwinds will create a current that will push the spoon further.

##### Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

I meant that it does not work as indicated in the patent. And it works the opposite way. I also thought at first that she should quickly push the air down. But got the opposite effect.
If you compare with the pool, it looks like this.

No it would not.

I have made several attempts to explain how the analogies presented are invalid in the context of vertical propulsion through the atmosphere. Lets try a new angle: Start from one of the failed analogies, from there work backwards to construct a matching setup that includes the saucer. Then we will see if there is a possibility that you may find differences.
One analogy you have used is a hand in water/spoon in tea analogy.  In the following scenarios I will not be very stringent and some statements may lack precision. The point is to show why your analogies fail to answer valid questions. Not to be physically advanced or exact models.

Here’s a scientist with a spoon, cup and tea, let’s name this scenario 1. Proportions and scale is not correct but not important for the analogy. The scientist does as you propose and force the spoon forward. That results in an opposite, resisting, force from the tea. Luckily our scientist is prepared, with both feet on a floor with large enough friction. The force from the feet is balanced by friction forces from the floor so the scientist does not slide backwards.

Next scenario (2)  is a saucer, just hovering in air. The saucer is just beginning an upstroke, trying to push air upwards. As seen in this picture there are force A again, this time pushing air up. Force B is resistance from the air. Force mg is gravity pulling the saucer down. This scenario does not have a force C and therefore is not a valid analogy for a description of the tea cup scenario. That also means the opposite; spoon in tea cup is not a valid analogy for the saucer. The water/tea/hand/spoon is a failed analogy for flying saucer. You can not use it to explain how the saucer is supposed to fly. Repeating the same analogy again does not help. Period.

So a modification is needed. Since the scientist needs support from the floor that is a good start to draw scenario 3. See the picture below where the saucer is held in place by a clamp. Now the force C is back into the picture and balances mg and B so that the sauce kan make an upstroke. This analogy is a better match than the previous one but there are some issues:
Air is compressible and has relatively low density.
The gravity is also a problem; mg was not part of the initial setup with the teacup.
Forces are vertical, not horizontal as in the teacup.

The final version takes care about the issues. In scenario 4 the saucer is submerged in tea and fastened at the bottom. When saucer applies force A to the right the water resistance, force B tries to hold the saucer back, or push it back, similar to the scientist in scenario 1. The force C applied at the point where the saucer is mounted is able to handle this so the saucer does not move.

Now I have worked backwards from a failed analogy. The starting point with the tea and the final analogy with saucer matches relatively well but it does not match the flying saucer. Are you now able to see that scenarios 1 and 4 are similar but scenario 2 is completely different? Any scientific predictions or explanations of flight through air in scenario 1 is not useful for explaining or predicting the outcome from propulsion experiments with scenario 2.

By now it should be rather clear that analogies you try to use as an explanations for the propulsion fails.

Again, can you explain the propulsion of the saucer in air, without using any analogy at all, including a mathematic model, backed up by reliable mainstream scientific papers or by providing evidence for new science needed. In speculations* you have to provide support for your idea. I'm trying to create questions and point at issues in such a way that it its possible to learn. I do not think your idea of propulsion is working and even if I did my task in speculations is to find issues.

On 2018-12-03 at 3:08 PM, MasterOgon said:

I don't know physics well.

I'm beginning to think that some learning may be required to continue this discussion in a meaningful way.

*) If you ask questions about mainstream science for instance in engineering the situation may be different. In some threads several members are cooperating and attempting to solve various issues. That is not the case in this section.

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

That results in an opposite, resisting, force from the tea. Luckily our scientist is prepared, with both feet on a floor with large enough friction. The force from the feet is balanced by friction forces from the floor so the scientist does not slide backwards.

We walk in a circle. The initial impulse is obtained according to this scheme:

A scientist can push a spoon using his weight. At the same time, it can be in zero gravity and not be in contact with anything else except tea. The question is how the liquid or gas will behave when this effect is exerted on it.

Let's look at the bullet example. This is more visual.

When the bullet flies, it is affected by the resistance of the air you are talking about. But what will happen if the bullet stops abruptly? It can be assumed that the compressed air in front of the bullet will begin to fill the area of low pressure behind it. And then the bullet will fly back into the gun. Then, according to your calculations f bullet = f air resistance and total f = 0. But I doubt it.
You do not take into account the fact that gas molecules have the energy of a bullet. By inertia, they will transmit this energy to each other, and the shock wave will spread further. And after it the area of reduced pressure will spread. And the bullet will be in the area of reduced pressure. This will be filled with calm air around the low pressure area. And since the low pressure will move forward after the wave, this will cause the wind to follow the wave and push the bullet further.

##### Share on other sites

The movement of air at the same time will resemble what happens during a nuclear explosion above the ground, when the shock wave propagates only upwards. The air filling the space goes upward, following the wave, raising a column of dust. Similarly, this air can lift a saucer.

##### Share on other sites

The last posts are a slight improvement since it describes air, but still there are problems. Let's see:

14 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The initial impulse is obtained according to this scheme:

No comment, wrong language in picture.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

When the bullet flies, it is affected by the resistance of the air you are talking about.

A flying bullet is it is affected by air resistance, that is correct. Why a new analogy again?

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

But what will happen if the bullet stops abruptly?

You tell me, bullet and gun is your analogy.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

It can be assumed that the compressed air in front of the bullet will begin to fill the area of low pressure behind it.

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.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

And then the bullet will fly back into the gun.

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?

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Then, according to your calculations f bullet = f air resistance and total f = 0.

I have not modelled a bullet so I do not know how you believe that. Show your calculations of your bullet model.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

But I doubt it.

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.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

You do not take into account the fact that gas molecules have the energy of a bullet.

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.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

By inertia, they will transmit this energy to each other, and the shock wave will spread further. And after it the area of reduced pressure will spread. And the bullet will be in the area of reduced pressure. This will be filled with calm air around the low pressure area.

Momentum is conserved. The air moves since some of the momentum of the bullet was transferred to the air.

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

And since the low pressure will move forward after the wave, this will cause the wind to follow the wave and push the bullet further.

Further than what? How much further?

12 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The movement of air at the same time will resemble what happens during a nuclear explosion above the ground, when the shock wave propagates only upwards. The air filling the space goes upward, following the wave, raising a column of dust. Similarly, this air can lift a saucer.

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?

##### Share on other sites
The examples I give are excellent. You just do not take into account some of the points about which I speak. In order to derive an exact mathematical model of saucer movement, one must be a good scientist and delve into different areas of knowledge. Therefore, so far I have it. But I have the result of the experiment, which I already understand. But the argument about this is still useless. Something I could already assume to describe the formation of a vortex by an exact model. I'll write about it later.

##### Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The examples I give are excellent.

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).

18 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

You just do not take into account some of the points about which I speak.

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.

18 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

In order to derive an exact mathematical model of saucer movement, one must be a good scientist and delve into different areas of knowledge.

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.

18 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

But I have the result of the experiment, which I already understand.

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!

##### Share on other sites
I thought that the principle of flight of birds is already known to all. I saw about this telecast on a natural geographer but I do not know how to find it. And but I have to prove to you what is already known.
Perhaps this is new information and it is difficult to find.

Perhaps you should study this issue in more detail if you want to reasonably refute the design of the saucer.

Unfortunately I could not find that movie. Following your ideas, in this video the fluff should fly back and not after the bird:

##### Share on other sites
And why does this car cling to the ground when it lowers the wing? According to your statements, he should bounce.

This device clearly refutes the theory according to which the rise of a bird is due to the fact that its wing area is smaller during its upward movement.

##### Share on other sites

(bold by me)

11 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Perhaps you should study this issue in more detail if you want to reasonably refute the design of the saucer.

That is probably a reasonable view of the situation, because since this thread started I have already spent a few hours* refreshing my knowledge in various areas. It’s been quite a while since I studied for instance draft and static vs kinetic friction. Visiting this forum and posting in this topic is both a way to learn more and, sometimes, to be able to provide some answers. But so far this thread has focused on refuting the various analogies and examples given since they are not describing the details of the propulsion. Once a reasonably detailed model of the saucer propulsion is provided I will see what further studying that is required on my part to refute the design. There's indeed a large probability that I'll have to spend some time studying, and/or ask other members. I’m prepared to do my part regarding further studies. Are you prepared to study physics in more detail to allow you to understand the answers already given in this thread?

10 hours ago, MasterOgon said:
And why does this car cling to the ground when it lowers the wing? According to your statements, he should bounce.

I don't think I have commented on the exact timing of the bounces against the ground for this specific car? If you disagree please provide quotation and your line of reasoning. In this case I suppose you mean the car shown at 00:57-01:09 in the video. The car has seem to have shock absorbers; white rods positioned at each wheel. I suspect that affects the timing of the bounces vs the timing of up and down movements of the "propeller/umbrella". Analysing the cars suspension adds complications that are not needed in an analysis of the hovering saucer.

10 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

This device clearly refutes the theory according to which the rise of a bird is due to the fact that its wing area is smaller during its upward movement.

I fail to understand that sentence.

*) You probably have noticed that I only answer approximately once a day; I have limited time read references, cross check my responses against reliable sources and to translate to english.

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Are you prepared to study physics in more detail to allow you to understand the answers already given in this thread?

I'm just doing this.

The car really makes a lot of unnecessary movements, because of which it is more difficult to understand.  Not a very good example.

There is an article from Wikipedia, in which it is written that this phenomenon is formed and established during a sharp drop in the helicopter. (This is the same as a sharp movement of the plate up. Only the top is kicked.) But there is no explanation for what principles this happens. Whirlwind is still an open question in science. Or at least on Wikipedia:

Air vortices can form around the main rotor of a helicopter, causing a dangerous condition known as vortex ring state (VRS) or "settling with power". In this condition, air that moves down through the rotor turns outward, then up, inward, and then down through the rotor again. This re-circulation of flow can negate much of the lifting force and cause a catastrophic loss of altitude. Applying more power (increasing collective pitch) serves to further accelerate the downwash through which the main-rotor is descending, exacerbating the condition.

I can not imagine how I can describe this phenomenon mathematically. I can only say that the vortex is formed due to the properties of the substance and lasts by inertia. How is my theory worse than the theories of other scientists who called all that they could not understand as dark matter? My theory is even confirmed experimentally. But I think about how this happens.

I assume that the air in a quiet state (without taking into account the Brownian motion) can be represented as particles that are at equal distance from each other. At the same time, the forces of attraction and repulsion between them are balanced and such a medium is completely homogeneous. Can this be applicable to air to simplify?

##### Share on other sites

Interesting post with new details!

13 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

I can not imagine how I can describe this phenomenon mathematically.

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!

##### Share on other sites

To meet your request of more details in the analysis and/or refutal this attempt will move forward at a slower pace. It may require several answers to specific questions as well as documentation about assumptions made. In this first post regarding the new information considering vortexes only one aspect will be addressed, Vortex Ring State (VRS). Once VRS is analysed, later follow-ups will address other vortex phenomena around the saucer.

Initial assumptions: I will base any analysis on facts available on the web, from reasonably reliable sources. I assume the saucer is supposed to follow the known laws of physics, no concepts such as anti gravity, negative masses etc is required.
When a description, analogy or model is not clearly defined in your posts I will make reasonable assumptions.

To make sure that VRS is actually occurring in helicopter flight (sometimes wikipedia is wrong) I checked some official sources regarding helicopter incidents. One such example is  https://www.havkom.se/assets/reports/Swedish/486037039_rm2005_01.pdf. Unfortunately the page is in Swedish but I’ll use it anyway and translate relevant parts since the report is from investigating a real helicopter crash and covers many aspects and comes from a usually reliable source. Final conclusion is that VRS played a central role in the outcome:

(Translation may have issues)

Quote

The accident was caused by the helicopter being manoeuvred into an aerodynamic situation, which meant that the helicopter at speed reduction to IAS = 0 dropped into its own downwash, locally located in front of and under the helicopter. This aerodynamic situation was developed into the vortex ring state (VRS), which became noticeable on measurement data about 8 seconds before the impact against the ice, after which the helicopter's sink rate could not be halted despite increasing pitch lever.

Now that we have concluded that VRS is an issue that can make a helicopter crash it seems kind of counter intuitive that it could make the saucer fly. But additional details are necessary. Vortex Ring State, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring_state:

Quote

In forward flight, there is no upward flow (upflow) of air in the hub area. As forward airspeed decreases and vertical descent rates increase, an upflow begins because there are no airfoil surfaces in the mast and blade grip area. As volume of upflow increases, the induced flow (air pulled or "induced" down through the rotor system) of the inner blade sections is overcome and the blades begin to stall near the hub. As the inner blade sections stall, a second set of vortices, similar to the rotor tip vortices, form in the center of the rotor system. The inner set of vortices decreases the amount of lift being produced and causes an increase in sink rate. In an accelerated condition, the inner and outer vortices begin to feed each other to the point where any increase in rotor blade pitch angle increases the interaction between the vortices and increases the rate of descent. In this state, the helicopter is operating in its own downwash, descending through descending air. The failure of a helicopter pilot to recognize and react to the condition can lead to high descent rates and ground impact.

Verifying this information leads to https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/media/hfh_ch11.pdf
The conclusion regarding the information above is that VRS does not apply to the saucer since the saucer is designed as a solid disc. A second set of vortices through the centre is not possible unless there are holes through the saucer. None of the pictures of the saucer suggest that the saucer has holes in or near the centre. But before arguing against VRS I did some additional research and found that there exists other definitions where a single vortex occurs, still leading to the defined VRS. See https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11881/256/01_basset.pdf?sequence=1: This is more similar to your helicopter picture above.

Quote

When a helicopter increases its sink rate, especially when its sink rate is close to the rotor induced velocity, the rotor enters its own wake and creates a doughnut-shaped ring, known as the Vortex Ring State (VRS).

Note, above describes a single vortex, not two.

Question 1:
Is this enough details to refute the saucer's connection to VRS as defined on Wikipedia page about VRS*? This is important since it allows for simplifications in future followups.

If yes then the logical conclusion is that the saucer relies on a vortex similar to the tip vortex, described for instance here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060024029.pdf:

Quote

In this condition the rotor tip vortices are not convected away from the disk rapidly enough, and the wake builds up and periodically breaks away (fig. 1). The tip vortices collect in a vortex ring, producing a circulating flow down through the rotor disk, then outward and upward outside the disk.

Question 2: Is the next step an analysis of a single vortex occurring around the rim of the saucer, as seen in your picture? If answer is yes then the next follow-up will contain a more detailed analysis of that specific phenomenon.

*) This shows a possible problem with relying on wikipedia as a single source. It is better to supply references to more detailed sources.

Edited by Ghideon
grammar

##### Share on other sites

Ring vortex can be created in other ways. The example with a helicopter is more complicated than it is required for a plate. It only shows that such a vortex can create a tangible force for some time. But it’s better to look at the following example.

"A vortex ring usually tends to move in a direction that is perpendicular to the plane of the ring and such that the inner edge of the ring moves faster forward than the outer edge. Within a stationary body of fluid, a vortex ring can travel for relatively long distance, carrying the spinning fluid with it. "

This means that regardless of how it appears, a vortex is a mass of air that can move, and therefore move an object.

"One way a vortex ring may be formed is by injecting a compact mass of fast moving fluid (A) into a mass of stationary fluid (B) (which may be the same fluid)."

This means that you can create an annular vortex by giving acceleration to the air simply by pushing it.

Oppantion of how the saucer pushes the air upwards and creates a ring whirlwind underneath you will not find anywhere else. This cannot be verified by a reliable source. Only experimentally. Based on the available information, we can assume the following. When gas or liquid flows around a circular plate, turbulence forms in the form of a vortex ring behind it.

When the plate stops, a whirlwind closes.

##### Share on other sites

I had hoped for a more straightforward answer, are the following two answers what you intended to say?

Quote

Question 1:
Is this enough details to refute the saucer's connection to VRS as defined on Wikipedia page about VRS*?

Quote

Question 2: Is the next step an analysis of a single vortex occurring around the rim of the saucer, as seen in your picture?

Answer: No, something else is needed.

Some comments regarding the last post:

16 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

Ring vortex can be created in other ways.

I know that already. It was You introduced the helicopter and said you had experimental confirmation of a vortex, stated it under a picture of a helicopter generating one vortex, in a post linking to material about the vortex:

On 2018-12-09 at 7:00 PM, MasterOgon said:

I can only say that the vortex is formed due to the properties of the substance and lasts by inertia. How is my theory worse than the theories of other scientists who called all that they could not understand as dark matter? My theory is even confirmed experimentally. But I think about how this happens.

So what did you experimentally confirm? It looks like the interpretation of the experimental result a not a solid theory but more like a set of guesses.

16 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The example with a helicopter is more complicated than it is required for a plate. It only shows that such a vortex can create a tangible force for some time.

I know that the helicopter does not explain the propulsion. You introduced the helicopter. This is again an example why I keep requesting more details. Your vague descriptions of various concepts and phenomenons makes time consuming to produce a detailed analysis regarding the saucer. Next time, be very careful, detailed and specific about what the issue is (bold by me), I need to know if the issue is something you consider important as support for your design or not.

On 2018-12-09 at 6:08 AM, MasterOgon said:

Perhaps you should study this issue in more detail if you want to reasonably refute the design of the saucer.

16 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

But it’s better to look at the following example.

Not yet, one concept at a time. First the helicopter issues, I'll adress other concepts later.

Edited by Ghideon
first line corrected

##### Share on other sites
I told you that you will not find confirmation of this data anywhere. I have a clear interpretation of the results of the experiment. The saucer pushes away from the air. I described how this happens in all possible ways and well-known analogies. With the help of the experiment, you can make sure that this happens, and understand exactly how. If there is no concept of "inertia of the air flow", does this mean that the air cannot move by inertia? I think the result of the experiment is more important than any reliable sources. The wind tunnel was thought for good reason.

The process I'm talking about is happening near the aerodynamic plane. This example is great. Even if the saucer will have the shape of a helicopter blade.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

This example is great.

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:

On 2018-12-11 at 11:27 PM, Ghideon said:

The conclusion regarding the information above is that VRS does not apply to the saucer since the saucer is designed as a solid disc.

##### Share on other sites
The flow of air that creates the force occurs around each individual blade. But this is not written
To describe the work of the saucer you need to understand how a whirlwind forms in the air and why it continues after it has been created. This should be considered at a more complex level.

I just have no time to think it over now.

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MasterOgon said:
I told you that you will not find confirmation of this data anywhere. I have a clear interpretation of the results of the experiment.
!

Moderator Note

The problem is, you can't explain it sufficiently to anyone else. If you can't do that, you aren't doing science.

We're 4 pages into this discussion, and it seems you're still bringing up concepts that were refuted in earlier posts. This type of one-step-forward, two-steps-back process doesn't work in the Speculations section. You need to adjust your idea to match observations about mainstream science others (well, one other) are making.

Please go back through the thread and take all you've learned into account. In order for a speculative thread to progress, you need to build on what's known, and throw away what's been refuted. If you can't explain your idea so others can work with it, I'm going to shut the thread down. It's not fair to participants if you aren't going to listen.

##### Share on other sites

I understand that this conversation has stalled. The problem is that all denials are based on incomplete information. And to find a reliable source with the missing information, to use it as an argument, is impossible or very difficult. This argument is that the environment (water or air) continues to move by inertia after it gets accelerated. This is because every atom of air or water has a mass. Is this speculative information? It turns out that the concept can not be proved due to the fact that I can not find a link to a simple fact. All my explanations are meaningless without this fact.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

The problem is that all denials are based on incomplete information. And to find a reliable source with the missing information, to use it as an argument, is impossible or very difficult. This argument is that the environment (water or air) continues to move by inertia after it gets accelerated. This is because every atom of air or water has a mass. Is this speculative information? It turns out that the concept can not be proved due to the fact that I can not find a link to a simple fact. All my explanations are meaningless without this fact.

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:

Quote

environment (water or air) continues to move by inertia after it gets accelerated

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.

Edited by Ghideon

##### Share on other sites
I know about saving momentum. Energy can not come from nowhere. In order to understand the process it is necessary to understand the principle of the movement of water or gas. Let's consider the following model.
What is a substance (eg water)
Atoms or molecules of a substance are equally spaced from each other. The forces of their mutual attraction and repulsion are balanced. And the substance is at rest.
A structure in which the distances between points are equal will look like equilateral triangles. They in turn turn into hexagons. To a certain extent, this corresponds to the structure of water in a calm state. Like a snowflake.

Suppose that if you apply a force to one of the atoms, then its movement is possible only along the path of least resistance. This property also has a water.

Now look at the picture. We push atom 1 and the arrows show the direction in which the energy transfer of this impact is possible. It's like in billiards. We see that part of the water resistance force goes in a circle and comes back to us from behind. And the energy that does not return to us is distributed evenly in a circle.

This construction is a purely logical problem. But it corresponds to the process that exists.
The role of inertia here is that this process takes place for a certain time. Atoms are pushing each other in turns and we get a blow from behind when we forget that we were pushed forward and returned to the starting position.

If we consider this on the example of a square-shaped crucifix, we will get a completely different picture, which will also correspond to the real one. For example, if we hit the metal.

It seems that when science lacks data, conduct research

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

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.

I agree

##### Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MasterOgon said:

I agree

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.