This invention should work ELSE the conservation laws are wrong.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a proposed invention that challenges the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. It argues that if the invention fails, it would imply these fundamental laws are incorrect. The inventor explains the mechanics of propulsion through elastic collisions, emphasizing the difference between momentum and kinetic energy. The invention suggests that by manipulating the energy transfer during collisions, it can achieve net propulsion without violating conservation laws. Ultimately, the assertion is that the invention adheres to established physics principles while potentially redefining propulsion methods.
dE_logics
Messages
742
Reaction score
0
Last time people concluded that 'I proved the law of conservation of energy and momentum wrong by my invention'...but the reality is strictly opposite.

If this invention DOES NOT work THEN then 2 laws are wrong. This invention follows all rules and regulation governed by the physics book. Notice that "a body cannot be propelled without interaction of external mass" is NOT any law.
As wiki states -

"The law of conservation of momentum means that in order for a propulsion method to change the momentum of a spacecraft it must change the momentum of something else as well."

That something else IS there...there's an independently moving mass inside which propels the thing.

This is how it works -


All this is considering elastic collisions.

Suppose a light ball collides with a heavy body...suppose a boat.

Depending on the difference between masses of the ball and boat, the ball will recoil.

If the boat is heavy, the the ball will recoil more...the reason for this is the law of conservation of K.E working in conjunction to law of conservation of momentum. The 2 are not the same thing...that's the problem.

When the ball collides with the boat, it delivers the same amount of impulse that was delivered to it, but not the energy, since K.E has an exponential relationship to velocity and leaner to mass while momentum is leaner to both, even though the rated impulse will be delivered to the boat through the ball, all the energy possessed by the ball will not be derived to the boat cause the boat has gained momentum by virtue of mass...i.e less velocity. Ultimately very less K.E.

The remaining energy will be transferred to the ball and seen as the recoil.


Now what I've done is for example...I'm on the boat and I've thrown the ball in the 'negative' direction...this will initially propel the boat in the positive direction.

If this ball collides with the boat, the boat will attain a velocity in the negative direction and it (the ball) will recoil.

If it again hits the boat after recoil the boat will now start moving in the positive direction...this will continue forever and there will be no net propulsion and the boat will simply resonate between 2 points. Since I've considered elastic collisions here the ball won't simply stop cause of 'thermal motion'.

Suppose the ball after recoil is moving to the positive direction (and the boat, consequently to the negative), assuming the ball has iron inside it, if I pull the ball (trying to stop it relative to the boat) through a solenoid and stop the solenoid after the ball has stopped, this will be different from a collision.

This time, all K.E possessed by the ball will be will be used to propel the boat in the positive direction...so instead of all the momentum being transferred from the ball to the boat, all the energy gets transferred. For the same reason this impulse given to the boat through this magnet will be more than the collision of the ball to the boat or the impulse given by me to the boat when I threw the ball resulting a net propulsion in one direction.

If things simply stop, the law of conservation of energy will be violated...so it has to get propelled.

Now as wiki states "The law of conservation of momentum means that in order for a propulsion method to change the momentum of a spacecraft it must change the momentum of something else as well."

The momentum of this ball is changing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the way, I've used electromagnetism also...and that is well know not to apply to this law.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top