View Full Version : Wormole and reactionless drive
Ok, so, correct me please - there is a picture attached + title of topic should explain the idea. Where am i wrong? Am i?
russ_watters
Jun21-09, 10:58 PM
I can't make any sense of that pic.
HallsofIvy
Jun22-09, 11:14 AM
Do you have two wormholes with something (water?) going in one end and out the other or is that two ends of the same wormhole? What is causing the water to come out of the wormhole? What happens as your "ship" moves away from the wormhole?
Well, it is supposed to be one wormhole with both ends in the "ship". Watter, for example, is pumped in the lower hole and it comes out the upper, other end of the hole. What causes it to come out? Inertia (spell?)?
When the pump pushes watter out of it self it recoils back, but the watters kinetic energy isn't absorbed by the back of the "ship", but instead comes out the other end of the wormhole and is absorbed by the front of the "ship".
Now, this cant really be, because it violates some laws and would make "reaction-less drive" possible. What I want to know is where is this wrong, so no laws are broken. (?)
And the wormhole is supposed to be ON/IN the "ship".
Vanadium 50
Jun27-09, 02:21 PM
"Please help me with my perpetual motion machine" is not something that this forum is well suited for - even if the help is trying to understand where it's wrong. There's a reason why perpetual motion machine threads seem to get locked quickly.
You've postulated a quasi-magical pair of disks where something going into one with momentum p comes out of the other with momentum -p, all without changing the disks' momentum. Why are you surprised that this doesn't conserve momentum?
Because its a wormhole - you don't hit anything when going in one, you don't touch anything. Just go through it without losing momentum. If one loses momentum, where does it go?
I'm not saying this is true, just want to know what and how.
m.starkov
Jun27-09, 08:55 PM
I guess all you have to understand is that such holes can't exist w/o massive object.
But if you will get one (massive object) then all momentum will come to it :)
Vanadium 50
Jun28-09, 02:23 AM
Because its a wormhole
Because it's a fribbitz.
Because it's a globschnurz.
You can always postulate something with unphysical properties and give it a name. That doesn't make its properties any more physical.
Because its a wormhole - you don't hit anything when going in one, you don't touch anything. Just go through it without losing momentum. If one loses momentum, where does it go?
I'm not saying this is true, just want to know what and how.
How old are you, Edi?
These GENTLEMEN might be more inclined to help, if you had a better drawing. I can't understand it, myself.
HallsofIvy
Jun28-09, 05:56 AM
Aww, c'mon. Who are you calling a GENTLEMAN!:rolleyes:
Aww, c'mon. Who are you calling a GENTLEMAN!:rolleyes:
Sorry. I was overreacting.
Ok, so its a fast sketch. I understand it :tongue:
17 btw.
A large wormhole might need a lot of mass/ energy, but how about i micro one? Subatomic level. And the water is not water, but a photon, for example.
The mass... the mass... that rises another question. To create a wormhole one would need to put a lot of energy/ mass in small enough space, but where does that energy go? Does the "mouth" of a wormhole have mass?
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.