Jump to content
Science Forums

A hypothesis for a possible reactionless drive


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1. With motion of any sort, there is friction.  2. If by 'reactionless', you mean that there is no NUCLEAR reaction, then I'll give you that. But a true reactionless drive would have no 2 parts whic

Dubbel, This dude PeterAX, is a flaming crank just ignore his stupid bullshit and move along.

He's not talking to either of us, he is talking to the OP.

1. With motion of any sort, there is friction. 
2. If by 'reactionless', you mean that there is no NUCLEAR reaction, then I'll give you that. But a true reactionless drive would have no 2 parts which would 'react' to each other. Thus, no moving parts, no transference of energetic particles, no magnetism, no graviton technology, and a host of other examples.
3. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. That's like saying you can see past infinity. No, you Can't.
4. MY EYES ARE BLEEDING FROM READING YOUR WALLS OF TEXT WHICH HAVE ***ZERO*** ACADEMIC CITATIONS. NO PROOF!!!


JUST STOP. Your science card has been revoked. Your "Research" is borderline nonsense conclusion shopping at best, and total waste of the time of anyone who reads it and a contributor to piss poor scientific methodology harnessed by weak minds searching for easy ways out of having to do ACTUAL, REAL RESEARCH.

Now, if you will excuse me, this is a total and complete waste of mental energy. The sheer intellectual gymnastics it took to contrive such lunacy is quite simply beyond me.

Come back with PROOF, or do not come back at all......

With the very little respect I may still have,
~Rasti

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To Dubbelosix, to Rasti and to VictorMedvil.

---------------------------------------

You three have to educate seriously yourselves in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics and just then to take part in this discussion! Because otherwise you are talking only nonsense! 

Which of the experiments in the link below are not correct (entirely or partially), you ignoramuses?!

(Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe )

 

Edited by PeterAX
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, PeterAX said:

To Dubbelosix, to Rasti and to VictorMedvil.

---------------------------------------

You three have to educate seriously yourselves in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics and just then to take part in this discussion! Because otherwise you are talking only nonsense! 

Which of the experiments in the link below are not correct (entirely or partially), you ignoramuses?!

(Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe )

 

No, No we don't need to even watch your youtube video, I know for a fact that it is impossible to make a perpetual motion device, I am not going to waste my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PeterAX said:

To VictorMedvil.

--------------------------------------

Which of the experiments in the link below are not correct (entirely or partially), you ignoramus?!

(Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe )

 

 

 

Moderation Note:

PeterAX your nonsense has been moved to Silly Claims, where it belongs.

If you continue to annoy other members with taunts and insults, you will be perma- banned and your nonsense removed from this forum

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 7:10 AM, Dubbelosix said:

Rasti who are you talking to. Can you please quote?

Sorry about that, I was addressing the OP. 

....which I shall not do again until he has proof, or needs another example of why his conclusion shopping has zero place in modern scientific speculation, discussion or application. 😄

~Rasti

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 1:49 PM, PeterAX said:

To Dubbelosix, to Rasti and to VictorMedvil.

---------------------------------------

You three have to educate seriously yourselves in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics and just then to take part in this discussion! Because otherwise you are talking only nonsense! 

Which of the experiments in the link below are not correct (entirely or partially), you ignoramuses?!

(Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe )

 

Please, I'm perhaps one of the most open-minded people you may ever come to meet and still I am telling you, there is no chance for perpetual motion, unless of course you really have a solution, in which case you should be able to articulate it in a way that is very easy. Remember what Einstein said? A theory should be simple enough thar you can tell your granny about it! Don't link, explain for yourself how this miraculous device would work. I'm not following a YouTube link, not unless you cam describe it I'm some simple words. I'd be interested if you can because usually the most simplest of ideas can still be wrong. Perpetual motion, is well understood to be a myth.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No member of our team is got confused by placing this topic in the Silly Claim section. New revolutionary technologies are always rejected initially by many members of the official science community. This is a normal situation, more or less.   

Anyway let us repeat again our EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED concept.  

----------------------------------------

The link below describes a few simple experiments, which break the law of conservation of mechanical energy and the law of conservation of linear momentum. You can easily carry out these simple experiments in your garage as many times as you want. And here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe

---------------------------------------

IMPORTANT NOTE 1. It is highly recommendable that the above mentioned experiments are evaluated and realized by a highly qualified expert (Ph.D.) in theoretical and applied mechanics. Otherwise nothing will come of it (most probably).

----------------------------------------

IMPORTANT NOTE 2. The key question in the above mentioned experiments is how to reduce standard friction (where necessary) to a certain minimum limit, beyond which the experimental error (due to friction) is small enough and can be neglected. The answer is simple. You can use for example permanent magnet slides as shown in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoW0A8hYs5A . (Permanent magnet slides reduce friction practically to zero and the measuring devices do not register any force of friction.) Alternatively you can use hundreds of other methods for reducing of friction (as much as necessary) as modern technologies allow this feat. We live in 21st century after all.

----------------------------------------

Looking forward to your comments after repeating the above mentioned simple experiments.

Edited by PeterAX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...