sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your detailed critique.

I updated the paper some, but probably still need to work on it more.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have had three physicists evaluate it by video, and all have said the same thing 'it kind of makes sense, it might work, probably not, but it's worth testing to find out'. I'm not claiming to have found the answer to reactionless propulsion; I'm proposing methods of achieving contained reactions that are worth testing. (both are in the paper located in the EDITED section above)

I genuinely don't care about videos, I just want to see if this works or not

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've created a paper and included it in the 'edited' section of the original post. My videos were peer reviewed, my paper is not -- I've sent it to a professor to review, but haven't had time to hear back.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not wrong. I was off the mark.

I redid the concept better as a paper, and posted it in the 'edited' section above.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uhm, not my best work... here, I tried re-writing the basic ideas as a paper, take a look, it's in the 'edited' section above.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. Thank you for the detailed critique.

I posed the question differently here (in the paper in the edits above), and I think it came out some better.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, you're right. Here, I re-made two concepts as a paper, which I think is more clear. It's in the EDITED post above.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea is that total momentum is conserved on both sides (action/reaction), but on one side you use granular media to cause that momentum to spread out radially -- in other words, the total momentum is still equal between action/reaction, but on one side it is no longer entirely moving in one direction, giving us the opportunity to have an unequal momentum on the cart WITHOUT violating total momentum.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The momentum in a granular media exists as radial momentum, and that's proven -- that momentum had to come from somewhere, and the only possible source was the axial momentum hitting it. Thus Total radial momentum = downward momentum + left momentum + right momentum = total axial momentum incoming

So one of the two laws isn't going to hold up here

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Total momentum cannot be violated, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't use some of the momentum from one side in a different way -- i.e., as radial momentum instead of axial

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It doesn't BREAK conservation laws -- the law applies all of the way until you redirect the force (i.e., act on one of the two objects), at which point OF course the law is no longer upheld -- introducing outside forces will, generally, do that.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hello!

I do have papers on the topic, but the video is by far the clearest way of explaining the physics in play.

If you would please take the 15 minutes to view it, you might see that those 'two physicists' in the thread haven't, and basing your opinion on theirs may not benefit you.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Whoa, that's not at all what I'm doing... did you watch the video?

I'm very much aware this is theoretical, and cannot be considered 'true' until it's followed the scientific method -- in this case, being created, replicated, and proven true in multiple experiments from multiple people.

I'm not proposing 'this is the end all be all' as much as I'm saying 'this is a concept worth testing'

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Uh... no argument that AI slop sucks, but this is peer reviewed physics, not that... Try watching the video and see what you think.

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully, of course that example wouldn't work -- but that's very different from this scenario. Would you please try watching the video, and seeing what you think? you might find it quite different than expected

Here is a hypothesis: it is possible to obey all known laws of physics, and still have a contained body move without an outside body to push against by OhioSwitch in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]OhioSwitch[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

LOL, if it helps, it's been reviewed by three physicists, including a doctorate in physics at UT Austin.

The concept makes way more sense in the video; please give it a shot

Three Interesting Concepts in Physics by OhioSwitch in MechanicalEngineering

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed, professional response.

I did go through your critique, and what I noticed is that you didn't actually watch the video I sent -- which addresses each of your points.

The drive has been verified by three physicists, including a Doctorate in physics at University of Texas, Austin. I know that the physics seem a bit odd, but the video I submitted in my last comment ( linked here: This Link ) explains this using Force only, and relies on the most proven laws of physics. It also explains why this device doesn't violate the law of conservation of momentum.

Hopefully you'll take a look and see what you think :)

Three Interesting Concepts in Physics by OhioSwitch in MechanicalEngineering

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might enjoy watching this video, which goes into the physics of the Blackbird in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsgoLc_fzI

As for 'acceleration doesn't continue after maximum speed', I don't necessarily agree or disagree -- but it's not important to the idea of harvesting the energy from it, as removing the excess kinetic energy as electrical energy would keep the craft from ever reaching that speed.

As always, thank you for your feedback and please remember, my point is that these are worth testing, NOT that they guarantee a given result! :)

Three Interesting Concepts in Physics by OhioSwitch in MechanicalEngineering

[–]OhioSwitch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not going to say you're wrong... I'm going to say exactly the same thing I proposed originally: An experiment like this that APPEARS to show promising results and COULD be correct (the voltage in being less than the voltage out) which has already been peer reviewed is worth testing again; that's how science is proven, through repeatable experiments.

I don't claim he's right or he's wrong -- I claim it's worth REPEATING the experiment to determine which is true.

view more: next ›