a theory concerning space propulsion

[insane_alien]

well then insane allen

 

why dont you put some numbers into the equation and give it a try , let me help you.

 

V1f=M1-M2/M1+M2 * V1i

 

V1i = 70.711 m/s

M1 = 100 kg

 

there , now solve for V1f

 

I want to see what you will use for M2

 

 

M2 will be whatever the mass of your apparatus weighs. i do not know how massive it will be so i cannot put a meaningful number in there.

 

perhaps a preliminary estimate of 50000 tonnes should be used if we are to assume that the machine is free floating and capable of having the power to accelerate this to decent speeds. if its attached to a planet/moon/asteroid then thats what you'd use. this isn't complicated and we've explained it to you before.

 

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time).

 

I think it is said that our universe is an isolated system.

but there are none within our universe.

 

perhaps you can show me a isolated system.

 

no, none will be truely isolated, but as long as you factor in all the influences the laws of physics hold.

 

in your case, all we really need to consider is the interaction of the projectile and the launcher(and perhaps whatever it is attached to). everything else should be negligble.

 

i think you are trying to make this more complicated than it actually is.

Edited June 26, 2010 by swansont
fix quote tag

[ninus maximus]

Ninus, think for a second, no math is required to see this is false, your hypothetical space craft would at best wobble back and forth and go no where.

 

No matter the sped of the slug drawing it back to it's starting position would negate the original acceleration. It's as obvious to me as falling off a building results in hitting the ground...

 

and you guys call this a science forum?

 

Moontanman , falling off of a mountain is not similar to my concept , a more similar example

would be a race car accelerating from zero m/s to 70 m/s

then before he enters the first turn he takes his foot off the gas pedal.

 

his car then coast through the first turn.

 

his car then coast to the next turn.

 

his car then coast through the next turn.

 

his car still has momentum.

 

he then accelerates his car again.

 

and because his car has a initial velocity his car will gain more acceleration

before his car enters the first turn.

 

so when his car enters the first turn his cars velocity is greater than 70 m/s

 

 

its really extremely simple to understand , I am about to give up on you guys

as you dont appear to be very inteligent at all.

 

and perhaps you should rename this forum to the

pseudo-scienceforums.net

 

I dont see any science in this thread comming from you guys , only brainwashing results.

 

I see myself being banned from this forum , because you guys cant comprehend physics.

 

if thats the case , then so be it , this way you guys can maintain your pseudo-science image.

 

and I can find a forum where physics is comprehended.

Edited June 26, 2010 by ninus maximus

[swansont]

in my concept the mass passing through a turnaround is a elastic collision.

the mass conserves its energy and its momentum because it is not met by an opposing force.

 

other than a slight almost negligible resistance force as it presses against the turnaround

while passing through a turnaround.

 

 

If the projectile isn't met by an opposing force, its momentum will not change and it won't change direction. You can't just hand-wave away the turnaround. You need to show, analytically, what happens, based on conservation of momentum of the system, i.e. the projectile and the spacecraft.

 

(And, just so you know, it's the personal attacks that are going to get you banned. Not the lack of comprehension of physics 101 that you are displaying)

[ninus maximus]

a picture is worth a thousand words , now this forums intellectual properties has been defined.

 

a bunch of school kids on summer vacation , mingled with a few elderly people

who just happen to be here for some reason.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If the projectile isn't met by an opposing force, its momentum will not change and it won't change direction. You can't just hand-wave away the turnaround.

 

did you look at the MIT video , the momentum of the steel ball did not change

until gravity accelerated , slowed and stopped it.

 

still it presented a force that is the product of its mass * its velocity to the table.

 

If any one in this thread lacks comprehension of physics , it is not me.

 

if the turnaround drains so much momentum then why does the steel ball

accelerate to exactly the same speed when the ball is just dropped?

Edited June 26, 2010 by ninus maximus
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

ninus maximus, in this forum, we respect one another. You came to us, I suggest you drop the condescending attitude and debate nicely, or you will not stay here.

 

 

I would also be careful challenging people's credentials and argue the claims, instead. When a group of PhDs in math and physics all tell you that your claims are wrong, then perhaps you need to reconsider your own level of knowledge.

 

~moo

[ninus maximus]

ninus maximus, in this forum, we respect one another. You came to us, I suggest you drop the condescending attitude and debate nicely, or you will not stay here.

 

 

I would also be careful challenging people's credentials and argue the claims, instead. When a group of PhDs in math and physics all tell you that your claims are wrong, then perhaps you need to reconsider your own level of knowledge.

 

~moo

 

I highly doubt that any one I have conversed with on this forum has a PHD in math or physics.

 

I surmised this by their lack of the USE of math , and their heavy reliance on philosophy , things others have said.

if they were PHD's they would know how to use math to explain their side of the discussion.

 

thus my scientific summation of there abilities.

Edited June 26, 2010 by ninus maximus

[mooeypoo]

I highly doubt that any one I have conversed with on this forum has a PHD degree in math or physics.

You can doubt all you want, that doesn't change their credentials, or the lack of yours. In any case, that's not the point, the point is the attitude, which is still condecending and trolling, and is against the rules.

 

You came to this forum, and you will follow our rules or you will not stay here. It really is pretty simple.

 

~moo

[ninus maximus]

You can doubt all you want, that doesn't change their credentials, or the lack of yours. In any case, that's not the point, the point is the attitude, which is still condecending and trolling, and is against the rules.

 

You came to this forum, and you will follow our rules or you will not stay here. It really is pretty simple.

 

~moo

 

Done , its a waste of intellect conversing with you guys , you have none to share.

 

I suppose there may have been intellectuals in this forum in the past , but like me they

realized that this forum is a waste of their time.

 

you guys drove the smart smart people away .

leaving only stupid smart people.

 

[insane_alien]

bye then.

[charles langley]

hello everyone , I'm new to the forum.

 

and I have a theory of a new type of propulsion for space travel.

 

consider a rail gun that fires a 100 kg mass along a 500 meter rail.

 

then the mass enters a turnaround at the end of the 500 meter rail.

having accelerated the 500 meters , it will present a force to the turnaround.

 

the mass turns 180 degrees through the turnaround and begins traveling the opposite direction and free floats in zero g for 500 meters in the

opposite direction.

 

it then enters a second 180 degree turnaround and presents a force to the second turnaround.

the mass turns 180 degrees again in the second turnaround and now enters the rail gun a second time

and it is accelerated even faster the second time.

 

the two forces that are presented to the turnarounds by the 100 kg mass will cancel each other out and the force that was used to accelerate the 100 kg mass will propel the spacecraft.

 

 

so you end up with

2 positive forces for propulsion ;

1) the force used to accelerate the mass

2) the force presented to the second turnaround by the mass

and

1 negative force for propulsion ;

1) the force presented to the first turnaround by the mass

 

this process repeats giving the space ship the ability to accelerate as long

as power is used to accelerate the mass.

 

as the mass inside is following a path inside the space ship the momentum

of the mass in reference to the space ship is conserved.

 

and since force is not momentum the conservation of momentum

is not violated.

 

it is a closed system but matter is not crossing the boundary.

the forces that are applied to the space ship from the inside , push

the space craft the same way a mass ejection propulsion system works

by ejecting or throwing mass out of the spaceship.

 

 

the force that accelerates the mass inside the space ship is transfered to

the space ship which gives the space ship acceleration.

 

nothing needs to be ejected or thrown from the ship for propulsion.

 

you should have a look at the following web site.

http://technology.arc.nasa.gov/partnering/sbirsttr.cfm

[swansont]

 

did you look at the MIT video , the momentum of the steel ball did not change

until gravity accelerated , slowed and stopped it.

 

still it presented a force that is the product of its mass * its velocity to the table.

 

If any one in this thread lacks comprehension of physics , it is not me.

 

if the turnaround drains so much momentum then why does the steel ball

accelerate to exactly the same speed when the ball is just dropped?

 

 

If you want to use this as an example of conservation of momentum, then m2 in my equation becomes the mass of the earth. Which is perhaps 25 orders of magnitude larger than the ball, and the display only went to what — 4 digits? There's no way it can possibly show the slowdown predicted by theory.

 

But you could have predicted that, if you had applied physics to the problem, instead of hand-waving your way through it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

you should have a look at the following web site.

http://technology.arc.nasa.gov/partnering/sbirsttr.cfm

 

I think if you present this idea to NASA you'll give them a good laugh, and they'll tell you exactly what I and others here have told you.

[ninus maximus]

I was curious as to why so many seemed so interested in commenting off topic about my concept.

so I checked swansonts friends list to see if there might be some background traffic occurring.

low and behold , it appears that I was suddenly looking at a list of moderators that were defending

swansont.

 

which tells me that what we have here is more of a social network than a physics forum.

 

and if the moderators are the only ones responding to post and if someone doesnt agree with a

moderator because they dont agree with the moderators logic , and then all the moderators friends

and fellow moderaterators suddenly jump in and defend the moderator which eventually leads to the

person being banned as I have also checked out in the banned member list , or should I say

the moderators trophy room as that is more what it resembles.

 

I suppose you definitely have physics JUST THE WAY you want it.

 

none of the intruding posters added any content to the topic , that is considered trolling isnt it.

there main intent was to defend swansont because I questioned his refusal to supply a correct equation

that would fit into the discussion.

 

I have noticed one thing in common that they dont have is a failure to communicate with each other.

 

listed in order of apearance.

 

swansont---Sorry swansont is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

BigNose----Sorry Bignose is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

insane_alien ---- on my ignore list

mooeypoo---Sorry mooeypoo is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Moontanman ---- on my ignore list

Charles Langley - not friends with any of the above , so not ignored.

 

 

-----------------swansont------FRIENDS--LIST---------------

mooeypoo

BigNose

insane_alien

Moontanman

 

-----------------mooeypoo------FRIENDS--LIST---------------

ydoaPs

insane_alien

Moontanman

swansont

 

-----------------insane_alien--FRIENDS--LIST---------------

mooeypoo

 

 

-----------------Moontanman----FRIENDS--LIST---------------

mooeypoo

 

 

-----------------BigNose-------FRIENDS--LIST---------------

ydoaPs

 

-----------------ydoaPs-------FRIENDS--IN--COMMON--LIST---------------

BigNose

insane_alien

mooeypoo

Moontanman

swansont

Edited June 27, 2010 by ninus maximus

[Moontanman]

Ninus, you are so full of shit it's not funny, yes i have friends but none of them would let me get by with the bullshit you suggest, and I am totally ignorant, barely able to count money and spell, lol. I am just speechless at how much you smell like troll....

 

yeah i know, spank me, he is still a troll....

[mooeypoo]

Alright, enough.

 

Seems like the crappy attitude is infectious. This thread is going nowhere, and this attitude is unacceptable.