If I told you I can make a ship that moves
in outerspace that has no "propellant" being used
and only uses electricity without forcing anything
out of the ship to make it move, would you believe me?

Yes, but how would you control its direction?

Spaceman wrote:
If I told you I can make a ship that moves
in outerspace that has no "propellant" being used
and only uses electricity without forcing anything
out of the ship to make it move, would you believe me?

Yes, but how would you control its direction?

If I told you I can make a ship that moves
in outerspace that has no "propellant" being used
and only uses electricity without forcing anything
out of the ship to make it move, would you believe me?

Spaceman wrote:
If I told you I can make a ship that moves
in outerspace that has no "propellant" being used
and only uses electricity without forcing anything
out of the ship to make it move, would you believe me?



I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Prove it. Building and demonstrating a scale model would be a great
start.

Dirk wrote:
I have a question for you Jim....  When you were
growing up did you ride the short bus to school?

I have a question for you Dirk.
Do you always show your ignorance and insults
without trying the experiment yourself?

mike_l_rossREMOVE at (no spam) REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:R_adnZjT1rpHGevVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...

Yes, this is absolutely laughable. Spaceman should take all his
money and develop this idea for mankind. The world is sorely in
need of his genius.

The three words that flout this idea are FREE BODY DIAGRAM, a
concept from elementary physics. Momentum is conserved, period.

I will admit, I think we've all come up with this idea at some point.
It seems SO simple.

Until one does the math.

I have a question for you Jim.... When you were
growing up did you ride the short bus to school?

johnny at (no spam) .> wrote in message
news:Mmydk.22095$NQ5.223 at (no spam) bignews6.bellsouth.net...
mike_l_rossREMOVE at (no spam) REMOVEcomcast.net wrote:
I wonder how those flying saucers work? They just seem to rise up in the
air and take of with incredible speed, with no propellants showing.

Maybe we don't know the laws of physics.

Ok, it's pretty simple.

You know how toast always lands butter side down?
And cats always land on their feet?

Ok. Get a cat.
Oh wait. First get steel mesh gauntlets.
And maybe a face shield.

Now pick up the cat again.
Get some butter. (Unsalted is best).
Spread butter on the cats back.
(Hence needing the gauntlets and face shield).
Now let go of the cat.
Pry cats claws out of items of personal clothing, skin, hair that it is
clinging to.

You will find the cat now floats.
Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it hates paradoxes even more.

It can no longer resolve whether the cat should land on its feet or on the
butter side.
So the only solution is for it to float.

Now, if you'll note, the sound often reported with flying saucers can also
be described as a purring sound.

You may be wondering about Roswell.

They had been experimenting on new genetically modified cats. Unfortunately
one genetic change was the addition of a Gene Simmons type tongue. The cats
managed to lick the butter off their backs and the paradox was resolved,
unfortunately at about 75,000 feet. And the rest is history.

Mr. Strider is quite right. What you are seeing on your table top is
the difference between Static Friction and Dynamic Friction (often
called "Stiction" and "Friction").

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:1dKdnVeMmNa9wOvVnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Spaceman wrote:
So when an astronaut pulls against the side
of the spacestation is moves the space station the same
distance towards the astronaut that the astronaut
moves towards the wall of the space station?
You really should just stop this discussion now.

More about the astronaut and his "relative mass impact force".
According to relative mass physics
If an astronaut always pulled really fast
and pushed away slower.. the Space station would move
more towards him each time and start to move in the motion
he pulls towards.
No it wouldn't.

Actually it would.


Towards it with a higher relative mass force,
and away with a lesser relative mass force.
the two occuring as such causes motion
of the larger mass.
:)

Let me ask you this. Do you REALLY think you're just a genius that
NO ONE has thought of this before and developed this as a
reactionless drive?

Not at all,
I am just the one that has used the slower motion
back for it "to" work at all.



I'll give you a hint. If this really worked, satellite manufacturers
would have been ALL over this by now. It would save them millions.

Well,
It seems they are missing a simple physics fact then.
Maybe it is all people like you that just never tried
it for themselves because they use math only and never try
actual experiments.

I wonder how those flying saucers work? They just seem to rise up in
the air and take of with incredible speed, with no propellants
showing.

Maybe we don't know the laws of physics.

Leopold Stotch wrote:
Mr. Strider is quite right. What you are seeing on your table top is
the difference between Static Friction and Dynamic Friction (often
called "Stiction" and "Friction").

Ok first of all,
Maybe you should read the post I made first.
Instead of jumping on the non experimental bandwagon
that I can tell they ride on with a horse pulling it
since they could never come up with an engine
by the way they act.

Second.
I am not even using a table so you really did not
think abotu what I am doing
at all.
I have a mechanical pendulum version hanging from a string
and the pendulum swings one way fast and back slow.
The working device I have is making a model keep
a circular motion while hanging on a string.
and this circular motion does not stop til I
turn the power off.
Why don't you try it for "real" instead
of not even trying it at all.
:)

Spaceman wrote:
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:1dKdnVeMmNa9wOvVnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Spaceman wrote:
So when an astronaut pulls against the side
of the spacestation is moves the space station the same
distance towards the astronaut that the astronaut
moves towards the wall of the space station?
You really should just stop this discussion now.

More about the astronaut and his "relative mass impact force".
According to relative mass physics
If an astronaut always pulled really fast
and pushed away slower.. the Space station would move
more towards him each time and start to move in the motion
he pulls towards.
No it wouldn't.

Actually it would.


Towards it with a higher relative mass force,
and away with a lesser relative mass force.
the two occuring as such causes motion
of the larger mass.
:)

Let me ask you this. Do you REALLY think you're just a genius that
NO ONE has thought of this before and developed this as a
reactionless drive?

Not at all,
I am just the one that has used the slower motion
back for it "to" work at all.



I'll give you a hint. If this really worked, satellite
manufacturers would have been ALL over this by now. It would save
them millions.

Well,
It seems they are missing a simple physics fact then.
Maybe it is all people like you that just never tried
it for themselves because they use math only and never try
actual experiments.


Maybe you should contact NASA on this one. Who knows, maybe someday
soon we'll all be flying around the solar system in our Driscoll
engine equipped spaceships.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Tell me something (and show the math)

Oh, that is the problem,
you can't understand reality without math.
You must be one of the those "the math causes effects"
type of guys.

:)

Do you think more mass takes more force to move it
than less mass would take?
Do you think less mass would take less force to move it
than more mass would take?

If you think yes to both of the above.
Then the idea will work.

If you don't want to do the math yourself.
I could care less if you can't tell it will work.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman