Relative No-emission Propulsion

aspagnito
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Following Einstein we know, that when the speed of mattery is about the “c” vallue, the further increase of speed causes “great” increase of mass.
In our system the substance (mattery) is moving round around the circle with the vellocities close to “c” and acceleration “a”.

Additionally this “wheel” makes a specific movement - forwards and backwards along the axis of rotation of the “wheel” that is in the center of the wheel.

But this forwards and backwards movement is very specific. In one direction it moves faster in the other slower.

In the direction (forwards-backwards), when the velocity is higher, the acceleration of the substance in wheel has some shorter time to operate and causes LOWER INCREMENT OF the valocity and MASS.
In the direction (forwards-backwards), when the velocity is lower, the acceleration of the substance in wheel has some longer time to operate and causes BIGGER INCREMENT OF the valocity and MASS.
Different masses at the ends of the forwarwads-backwards movement cause different FORCES. On one of the ends the force is always smaller than on the other side.
The system moves in one side of a forwards-backwards movement depending on whether it is acceleration, slowing down, and depending on which side is the forwards and which side is the backwards.
 

Attachments

  • 2007-03-13_192037.jpg
    2007-03-13_192037.jpg
    13.2 KB · Views: 495
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really follow your setup, but I can tell you it won't work. We all try to make a reactionless drive at some point, but the great lesson you can learn here is to prove to yourself why it won't work.

Add up all the forces and you'll find they cancel out.
 
Not if comes to reltivity... but as You say, You don't follow my setup.
 
It doesn't appear that you're asking for anything in here and simply trying to present a self-made "theory". If that is the case, please re-read the PF Guidelines and note that such post can only be done in the Independent Research forum.

Zz.
 
Is there a way to transfer my thread to this subject? I already got a warning for doubling the threads.
 
No, there isn't. This is because the IR forum has a set of very specific rules on HOW to post there. So you won't be making a duplicate. Besides, this thread will be deleted once you post something there. I'm leaving this undeleted just in case you need content.

Zz.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top