Is kinetic energy enough to propel objects in 3D space?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a 3D motion generator concept called Anti-Gravity Transportation (AGT), with the creator seeking insights to enhance its design. There is an acknowledgment of potential propulsion and sustainable energy from this idea. However, the response highlights that the concept resembles a perpetual motion machine or "anti-gravity" device, which contradicts established physics laws. Consequently, the thread is locked due to the nature of the topic. Further clarification can be sought through private messaging if needed.
D-son
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I've recently created a 3D motion generator (Anti-Gravity Transportation (AGT)) in 2D/3D design. unfortunately my current physics knowledge is not advanced enough to take this machine to its maxium potential. i can concieve perpultion and sustainable energy coming from this idea. my question comes in the design its self. for anyone interested i will gladly show more for your insight.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

What you said is a bit vague and confused, but sounds like a perpetual motion machine or "anti-gravity" device. Discussion of such topics is not allowed on PF because such devices violate the laws of physics. This thread is locked. If I've misunderstood something though, feel free to PM me with more specific information about what you want to discuss.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

I How to calculate the kinetic energy of an object propelled by a magnet?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Kinetic energy: Legal to use kinetically independent frames?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Rotational Kinetic Energy and Conservation of Momentum
2
Replies
63
Views
15K
Overunity Questions: Is Energy Added in Space?
Replies
5
Views
2K
I On gravity and the conservation of energy
Replies
30
Views
5K
Where does the energy for gravity come from?
Replies
32
Views
8K
Rockets and kinetic energy or: Why do rockets (Space Shuttle) have rising accel?
Replies
11
Views
9K
I Electromagnetic Fields and the manipulation of Space-Time
Replies
9
Views
3K
Could a pure-electric laser-propelled space rocket be mere decades away?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Explanation of gravity, am I in the ballpark?
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top