 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / December 2003A revolutionary propulsion system
Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion system SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the final purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the Moon and Mars. The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light). PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion (using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail i.e. the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless propulsion system. One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical rockets). There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system [snip] > One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that > the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the > ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical > rockets). [snip] Perpetual motion machine of the first kind plus a reactionless drive. Bullshit. http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg Space is homogeneous and isotropic. By Noether's theorem linear and angular momenta therefore must be conserved. Time is homogeneous. By Noether's theorem energy therefore must be conserved. Hey stooopid: Local symmetries create conservation laws through Noether's theorem, http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html http://www.emmynoether.com/ http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time, and the reverse. A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous transformation. 1.To each continuous symmetry of an action there corresponds a conserved quantity because of the Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian, and the reverse. 2.To each gauge symmetry of an action there corresponds an identity among Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian, and the reverse. A physical system with a Lagrangian invariant with respect to the symmetry transformations of a Lie group has, in the case of a group with a finite (or countably infinite) number of independent infinitesimal generators, a conservation law for each such generator, and certain "dependencies" in the case of a larger infinite number of generators (General Relativity and the Bianchi identities). The reverse is true. Go back and disprove mathematics, then restate your "invention." Ha ha ha. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm (Do something naughty to physics) > > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perpetual motion machine of the first kind plus a reactionless drive. > Bullshit. false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy are conserved: http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm > http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg > > Space is homogeneous and isotropic. By Noether's theorem linear and > angular momenta therefore must be conserved. Time is homogeneous. By > Noether's theorem energy therefore must be conserved. what you say is not general ...we have ALL experiments that prove the contrary > Hey stooopid: Local symmetries create conservation laws through > Noether's theorem, we showed PNN theory to several italian industries http://www.asps.it/enti.htm and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica a topic of http://www.asps.it http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html > http://www.emmynoether.com/ > http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 > http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html > > A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time, balle > and the reverse. balle >A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises > if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous > transformation. methaphysics ........ that don't want to see PNN experiments ......... methaphysics i.e. pre-galilean use of mind ..... the only way to change the reality is the experiment ..... http://www.asps.it/occhiale.htm E.Laureti >>>Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system >> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > E.Laureti Don't worry about Al. He wouldn't believe it even if he got a ride in it. He's a dinosaur- you know- one brain in the head and one in the tail. Unfortunately the brain in his coccyx has been so traumatized by incoming that it's permanently in control. John ...snip..... > > we showed PNN theory to several italian industries > > http://www.asps.it/enti.htm > > and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica a > > topic of http://www.asps.it http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html > >>http://www.emmynoether.com/ > >>http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > by incoming that it's permanently in control. > John .....Al is "the ....... arrogance of mathematical physicists giving priority to formalism against empirical facts....." http://www.asps.it/gotha.htm ................ he is like the dinosaur priests of Santo Uffizio that don't want to see the moon mountains in the Galileo telescope......... so there is no mean to convince him ..... but only to wait that the evolution make the work.... > ...snip..... > > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > so there is no mean to convince him ..... > but only to wait that the evolution make the work.... Go ahead, reduce your "invention" to practice. Ha ha ha. All talk, no walk - just like a Coriolus thruster. A Coriolus thruster chugs along a horizontal track and it even rises up a vertical track. If you put it in a small (keel)boat it moves the boat through the water without touching the water or tossing mass. The bunko is then to solicit major investments for a Coriolus thruster hovercraft or space propulsion. A Coriolus thruster is an inefficient reaction engine. It has to push against something (the boat will move at an angle, same as if it were under sail and summing sail and keel vectors). If you dangle one from a string it doesn't go anywhere - it spins in place like a whirling dervish, and there is nothing in physical reality that will change that short of hooking it to something that can push back. Cf: helicopter. You either have counter-rotating top fans, or a side fan, or you don't go anwyhere. You are either world class stupid or a second class crook. Whatever you have, it will do nothing floating in free space. If your math says otherwise, go back and find your idiot error. Go ahead, reduce your "invention" to practice. Ha ha ha. Like Podkletnov, it can only work absent people who are hostile to its intrinsic impossiblity. Physics is a series of innternally self-consistent axiomatic mathematical constructs bounded by empirical falsification. It contains no internal errors, git. If you wish to do something clever you don't have many choices: 1) Empirically counterdemonstrate a founding postulate of existing theory, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf 2) Cleverly violate a boundary condition in existing theory, Planck's constant (h, enforces uncertainty in measurement; h-bar is the fundamental unit of action), Newton's constant (Big G, scales gravitation), and lightspeed (c, enforces information transfer delay) define physics: ? h=h G=G c=infinity mechanics, electrostatics: h=zero G=zero c=infinity classical physics: h=zero G=G c=infinity quantum mechanics: h=h G=zero c=infinity special relativity: h=zero G=zero c=c general relativity: h=zero G=G c=c quantum field theory: h=h G=zero c=c Theory of Everything, 3) Evolve a superset of theory that does not contradict foregoing observations, then goes further. What you have, fool, is ludicrous sh.t. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm (Do something naughty to physics) > > ...snip..... > > > > > > > > we showed PNN theory to several italian industries > > > > http://www.asps.it/enti.htm > > > > and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica > > a ........snip > Go ahead, reduce your "invention" to practice. SC2.12 is only practice and experiments. We needn't to spend words for it. It superates the tests on ballistic pendulum, torsional pendulum, arm scale. We are open to test it in all the ways that the scientific team of a financer want. Your idiotic examples and theories on everything are sh.t. E.Laureti http://www.asps.it > false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy are > conserved: > http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm Obviously wrong, idiot. Paul > > false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy are > > conserved: > > http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm > > Obviously wrong, idiot. Is wrong this too ? : [5] Kirk T. McDonald ,Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (Nov. 15, 1998) [PDF]The Transverse Momentum of an Electron in a Wave 1 Problem 2 ... Formato file: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Versione HTML Page 1. The Transverse Momentum of an Electron in a Wave Kirk T. McDonald Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (Nov. 15, 1998) 1 ... www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/transmom2.pdf - Obviously not all have your opinion Overall aren't of your opinion PNN experiments : the alone thing that has physical meaning > Paul E.Laureti > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system <SNIP> Hello crackpot. > > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > <SNIP> > > Hello crackpot. http://www.asps.it/gotha.htm > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm Wow, an Italian Wacko! I didn't think Italy allow them, at least not to post on Internet sci newsgroups. Harry C. > One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that > the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the > ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical > rockets). I am underwhelemed. Where and when was this Amazing Electrical Rocket tested? Documentation? Vetting? Have independent knowlegable observers verified you claim? Or is this just another piece of KrackPot (tm) Bullshit? Bob Kolker > > One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that > > the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am underwhelemed. Where and when was this Amazing Electrical Rocket > tested? SC2.12 has no in common with a rocket . It reacts on the travelling e.m. field with momentum greater than E/c and , at now it works in UHF range It superates the tests on ballistic pendulum, torsional pendulum, arm scale. We are open to test it in all the ways that the financer i.e the scientific team of the financer want.. It was tested in Asps labs. We want to test it too in other labs under the procedure http://www.asps.it/propnn.it >Documentation? Vetting? Have independent knowlegable observers > verified you claim? We want all type of independent knowlegable observers ...but in the form http://www.asps.it/propnn.it there it is the way to avoid loss of PNN know-how at zero cost for who declare the interest to finance its industrial developments. The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid loss of information before its commercialization. All what we can say is in the Asps issue Nova Astronautica issn:0393-1005 since 1981 >Or is this just another piece of KrackPot (tm) Bullshit? We want to convince everybody about PNN only by experiments ..... but we want to show such experiments first only to the scientific team of who want the industrialization of PNN , i.e. to them want or develop or buy our prototipe. In http://www.asps.it/propnn.it is prevented that we want no money if our prototype is not AT THE END OF ALL THE TESTS a revolution in space transportation systems. > Bob Kolker E.Laureti http://www.asps.it >> The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid loss > of information before its commercialization. ...which of course misses the entire point of patenting. If you have a new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should patent it. Then you can commercialize it and keep all the profits to yourself for many years to come. If you don't, then not only do you have a hard time getting venture capital, but also anybody else could come up with the same idea. Then they'll patent it, and legally be able to prevent YOU from commercializing it (unless you pay them to license the design just like anybody else). Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners. > We want to convince everybody about PNN only by experiments ..... but we > want to show such experiments first only to the scientific team of who want > the industrialization of PNN , i.e. to them want or develop or buy our > prototipe. Yes yes, very convenient, I swear it works but I won't prove it to you unless you promise to give me money. As others have suggested, you're either a crook trying to swindle naive investors out of their money, or you're intellectually challenged. If you're not a crook, then give up this fruitless approach, patent the damn thing, and publish all the details for everyone in the world to see. Then, in very little time, you'll either be rolling in more cash than you know what to do with, or someone will have pointed out to you exactly how you have deceived yourself, and you can get on with more productive pursuits. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' > >> The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid > loss [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to prevent YOU from commercializing it (unless you pay them to license > the design just like anybody else). Actually it doesn't quite work this way. To patent something, you have to reveal your trade secrets. Which allows others to learn what you're doing. (In theory they can't replicate it, but it might give them new ideas.) In addition patents eventually expire. Trade secrets are just that, secret. For example, Coca-Cola's formula is a trade secret, not patented. If it were patented, at this point anyone could make an exact duplicate w/o fear of prosecution. However, as a trade secret, if someone came up with one that was identical (not just in flavor, but makeup) then they'd have to prove they had not received the formular from Coke and if they had, they'd be in big trouble. In addition, if someone patents something that has been publically discussed previously, they in theory lose the paten due to prior art. > Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure > bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners. Actually at least in the US, the only thing you absolutely have to demonstrate is a perpetual motion machine. (Which they don't claim this to be, though in reality I think that's actually what it would have to be in order to work.) I think it simply comes down to this being BS. > > We want to convince everybody about PNN only by experiments ..... but we > > want to show such experiments first only to the scientific team of who want [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > someone will have pointed out to you exactly how you have deceived > yourself, and you can get on with more productive pursuits. Well, this is easy enough to do. Someone can offer to pay them money if it works. If it doesn't, no money, or worse a lawsuit for fraud. Somehow I bet they'll wiggle out of that too. > ,------------------------------------------------------------------. > | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | > | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | > `------------------------------------------------------------------' > > ...which of course misses the entire point of patenting. If you have a > > new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > others to learn what you're doing. (In theory they can't replicate it, but > it might give them new ideas.) In addition patents eventually expire. Right. I know this, and didn't say anything that contradicts it. > Trade secrets are just that, secret. Right. Until somebody else comes up with the same thing. Then you have no protection. Again, pretty much what I said above. > In addition, if someone patents something that has been publically discussed > previously, they in theory lose the paten due to prior art. Right. A good reason to patent it BEFORE discussing it, instead of discussing it first, as this asps fellow seems to (partly) due. > > Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure > > bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be, though in reality I think that's actually what it would have to be in > order to work.) Right. I think a patent examiner would probably think the same thing, again, at least in the US -- and I don't know what the standards are in other countries. > I think it simply comes down to this being BS. Agreed. > Well, this is easy enough to do. Someone can offer to pay them money if it > works. If it doesn't, no money, or worse a lawsuit for fraud. That's what they're asking for, and I think it's a silly approach. Nobody's going to invest even the time it takes to properly examine a machine that violates accepted laws of physics based only on someone's claim that they've invented such a wonderous device but can't give you any details until you promise some money. Patent it first, publish the details widely, let other physicists build the damn thing and agree that it works, and THEN you'll have venture capitalists beating a path to your door. Unless, as you say, the thing is just BS, in which case the outcome of this approach would be nothing but public embarassment. I suspect that's why asps doesn't take this approach. Cheers, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' <snip> >That's what they're asking for, and I think it's a silly approach. >Nobody's going to invest even the time it takes to properly examine a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >this approach would be nothing but public embarassment. I suspect >that's why asps doesn't take this approach. The above reminds me of that substance a British guy invented some years ago that he called 'Starlight' it was a sort of white ceramic which could withstand tempretures of 7,000K, and the guy was holding out the secret for n million pounds. No-one at NASA has a clue as to how it was made, as the guy had all the samples and was withholding them from analysis till he gets some money, but NASA bright sparks who have seen Starlight in action so to speak were convinced that Starlight could do what the guy said it could. No idea what became of him or Starlight, as I've not heard a thing for years regarding it. Christopher +++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it." Winston Churchill >> In addition, if someone patents something that has been publically discussed >> previously, they in theory lose the paten due to prior art. > >Right. A good reason to patent it BEFORE discussing it, instead of >discussing it first, as this asps fellow seems to (partly) due. One exception: in the US -- and *only* in the US as far as I know -- there is a one-year grace period after publication during which patent filing remains possible. This is why the RSA encryption algorithm was patented only in the US.  SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net > >> The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid > loss [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should > patent it. patents in Italy are copied ... then you must defend your rights by lawyers and tribunals : the civil judgements have a period (in the better event) of about ten years .... during the period you MUST PAY LAWYERS! We can patent SC2.12 only when we have money for lawyers >Then you can commercialize it and keep all the profits to > yourself for many years to come. Then the money is necessary "suddenly" too to make judgements against aerospace industries "of the world" that for the simple fact that they want to survive to PNN ...to survive to PNN revolution such industries must copy and sobstitute "suddenly" PNN to rocketry..... The alone alternative for such industries is that PNN never go out of Asps.... I hope you can understand.... E.Laureti .......snip... > ,------------------------------------------------------------------. > | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | > | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | > `------------------------------------------------------------------' > Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure > bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners. Since when did patent examiners reject pure bunk? > Since when did patent examiners reject pure bunk? "bunk" as in "physically impossible because it violates fundamental principles" (as in this case)? All the time. "bunk" as in "is trivial, has been in use for decades in the industry, etc."? Sometimes, but with much higher probability outside the US of A. Jan > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm Anyone cared to calculate Baezian CI on this one yet ? Just skimming over, i'd give it about 300, give or take a hundred. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/%63ra%63k%70%6Ft.html -kert > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather > than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light). Reality Check: Has the Second Law Been Falsified http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-09/reality-check.html Pushing the Second Law to the Limit http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html Critical Thinking http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html Tuning Up Your Crank Filters http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system No English page, yet you are on English-speaking newsgroups. Why no translation? You have done this before (posting to these groups) for some years now, but still no English page. When I can read your page in *English*, I will be better able to comment. -- Alan Erskine alanterskine(at)hotmail.com Iraq, America's new Vietnam There *is* an English version, but the link was near the bottom of the page. Apologies. I recommend placing that link near the top of the page. -- Alan Erskine alanterskine(at)hotmail.com Iraq, America's new Vietnam > > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Iraq, America's new Vietnam > There *is* an English version, but the link was near the bottom of the page. > Apologies. I recommend placing that link near the top of the page. I think Americans are arrogant; but some Aussies have us beat. It is bad enough that you did not bother to scroll down a little way on this guy's link page to find an English version, but your apology does not seem sincere when you turn right around and ask him to move the English language version up the page and change the name of the thread. Of course that disassociates your apology with the original context, intended or not. It seems kind of ironic that you put him down for something he did correctly when in fact it turns out to be your own error that is at issue. > Iraq, America's new Vietnam The above phrase is another example of a conclusion drawn before all of the facts are IMO. If Iraq is America's Vietnam, then what was 911 (hint rhymes with Earl Barber). SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC <snip> > If Iraq is America's Vietnam, then what was 911 (hint rhymes >with Earl Barber). Err America getting a taste of the real world. :-\ Christopher +++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it." Winston Churchill > Err America getting a taste of the real world. :-\ Sad, but true. The world is a very nasty place and until we achieve nastiness sufficient for our survival as a nation, we are in deep doo doo. Evolution does not take prisoners. The last one standing is the winner. Bob Kolker > > Err America getting a taste of the real world. :-\ > > Sad, but true. The world is a very nasty place and until we achieve > nastiness sufficient for our survival as a nation, we are in deep doo doo. > > Evolution does not take prisoners. The last one standing is the winner. I'm glad you saw fit to give us warning. I'll be digging my bomb shelter at once. Don't you think it's at least possible that a "nastiness arms race" is one where the winner will also have lost? >There *is* an English version, but the link was near the bottom of the page. >Apologies. I recommend placing that link near the top of the page. Oooh, yes, you had better heed Psycho Erskine's "recommendation" or else he might netkkkop you. Ooh, I bet you're just SHAKING in your boots...... About Alan Erskine alanerskine@optusnet.com.au Alan Erskine is a well known Australian netkook, psychopath, and coward who lives in Melbourne. He usually stalks and harasses the posters of the sci.space groups, although he is known to make excursions into a wide range of other groups for the purposes of trolling and stalking and harassing the participants there. He is currently under investigation by the authorities in Australia. If you fall victim to his frequent attacks and stalking/harassment campaigns, like so many in the sci.space groups have, notify abuse@optusnet.com.au . This psycho is dangerous. Most sane participants have been forced to killfile him for his frequent violent outbursts at posters and his unrelenting attacks. Some are taking legal action against him. Here are just a few of his victims. He has been stalking and harrasing Scott and Betty Grissom relentlessly. Scott Grissom is the son of Gus Grissom, the second American in space, who died in an Apollo 1 training exercise fire, and Betty Grissom, 75, is his widow. Alan has also been waging long-time stalking and harassment campaigns against other well-known members of the space community, including Richard Katz of NASA, John Maxson, and his sons Paul and Daniel Maxson. He has even gone so far as to threaten to kill the entire Maxson family. He has been known to stalk his victims anonymously and via sock puppets, showing what a coward he is. Furthermore, he likes to challenge people to fights, telling them to come to Melbourne and look him up in the phone book, while having admitted elsewhere that he is not listed in the phone book. Coward! Alan is an enemy of freedom of speech and hates remailers, which serve a useful and necessary purpose. He has resorted to impersonating others and even himself through remailers in an effort to discredit remailers and make it look like others were attacking him through them. He regularly bombards remailer operators with hysterical complaints and threats and floods their mailboxes. Alan is currently on one of his psychotic crusades, this time to get people to killfile posts from remailers in order to prevent word of his misdeeds from getting out. Alan is a Nazi, he wants to be able to say whatever he wants about others but doesn't want anyone to mention him. He wants to express himself freely but wants to shut others up and, not only that, wants others to do as he says, read only the messages he approves of, etc. He wants to police, rule, and control newsgroups and people like the perfect little jackbooted Nazi he is. Alan is not just content to harass his victims in the newsgroups, he usually also stalks them via email. If you find yourself on the receiving end of Alan's famous psychotic emails, contact abuse@optusnet.com.au immediately, as well as the law enforcement agencies in Melbourne, Australia. This psycho is very violent. Do not attempt to reason with him yourself, many others have tried and he does not respond to reason. Let the authorities deal with him. > >There *is* an English version, but the link was near the bottom of the page. > >Apologies. I recommend placing that link near the top of the page. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > About Alan Erskine <snip> You're far more anoying than Alan Erskine. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. >> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > >No English page, yet you are on English-speaking newsgroups. Why no >translation? You have done this before (posting to these groups) for some >years now, but still no English page. When I can read your page in >*English*, I will be better able to comment. What makes you think anyone gives a f.ck about your comments? About Alan Erskine alanerskine@optusnet.com.au Alan Erskine is a well known Australian netkook, psychopath, and coward who lives in Melbourne. He usually stalks and harasses the posters of the sci.space groups, although he is known to make excursions into a wide range of other groups for the purposes of trolling and stalking and harassing the participants there. He is currently under investigation by the authorities in Australia. If you fall victim to his frequent attacks and stalking/harassment campaigns, like so many in the sci.space groups have, notify abuse@optusnet.com.au . This psycho is dangerous. Most sane participants have been forced to killfile him for his frequent violent outbursts at posters and his unrelenting attacks. Some are taking legal action against him. Here are just a few of his victims. He has been stalking and harrasing Scott and Betty Grissom relentlessly. Scott Grissom is the son of Gus Grissom, the second American in space, who died in an Apollo 1 training exercise fire, and Betty Grissom, 75, is his widow. Alan has also been waging long-time stalking and harassment campaigns against other well-known members of the space community, including Richard Katz of NASA, John Maxson, and his sons Paul and Daniel Maxson. He has even gone so far as to threaten to kill the entire Maxson family. He has been known to stalk his victims anonymously and via sock puppets, showing what a coward he is. Furthermore, he likes to challenge people to fights, telling them to come to Melbourne and look him up in the phone book, while having admitted elsewhere that he is not listed in the phone book. Coward! Alan is an enemy of freedom of speech and hates remailers, which serve a useful and necessary purpose. He has resorted to impersonating others and even himself through remailers in an effort to discredit remailers and make it look like others were attacking him through them. He regularly bombards remailer operators with hysterical complaints and threats and floods their mailboxes. Alan is currently on one of his psychotic crusades, this time to get people to killfile posts from remailers in order to prevent word of his misdeeds from getting out. Alan is a Nazi, he wants to be able to say whatever he wants about others but doesn't want anyone to mention him. He wants to express himself freely but wants to shut others up and, not only that, wants others to do as he says, read only the messages he approves of, etc. He wants to police, rule, and control newsgroups and people like the perfect little jackbooted Nazi he is. Alan is not just content to harass his victims in the newsgroups, he usually also stalks them via email. If you find yourself on the receiving end of Alan's famous psychotic emails, contact abuse@optusnet.com.au immediately, as well as the law enforcement agencies in Melbourne, Australia. This psycho is very violent. Do not attempt to reason with him yourself, many others have tried and he does not respond to reason. Let the authorities deal with him. > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm A fifty-fifty mix of gobbledegook and bullshit. Franz Heymann > "asps" <asps.ra1@flashnet.it> wrote in message > > > > There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm > > A fifty-fifty mix of gobbledegook and bullshit. Ah, but is it _non-Newtonian_ bullshit that can propel with no loss of reaction mass? Obviously asps has tapped into the fabric of usenet itself where no matter how much bullshit is removed more will always remain. With such a dangerous method I can only pray there will be no leaks. >Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm Err dosn't Newtons Third law of Motion have to be obeyed to get any movement going. Christopher +++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it." Winston Churchill OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible. At the moment, I feel that it is one of those ideas based on a theory that has an error some place. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ | >Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system | > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | the wind - not with it." | Winston Churchill > OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it > without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible. Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain unchanged under translation in space. So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the same as the physical laws that hold THERE. Bob Kolker | > OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it | > without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Bob Kolker But that is silly, as you can show that they do. This sounds like the same idea that suggests that a spinning gyro can precess without the energy loss contributing to the movement. I think I'll go lie down now. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. I agree that the best thing to do is take this along to a reputable university and have the experiments repeated. There are no such things as hard and fast laws created by man. We may sometimes get them right, but we can never be totally sure. I very much hope that we can invent a reactionless drive and maybe the universe has some quirks that we can exploit. Remember we might all be living in someone elses simulation of reality, so anything can happen. Stephen On the contrary Newton's laws of motion have been proved right. Cars move, aeroplanes fly, people go into space, craft hav been sent outside the solar system. All on Newton's laws of motion. Alan > It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about > many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. Well, to be fair, Newton's Laws have been shown to have a small amount of imprecision that doesn't cause problems until you get to significant percentages of the speed of light. > Stephen > On the contrary Newton's laws of motion have been proved right. Cars [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about > > many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. > It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about > many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation, and relativity turn into Newton's laws in the low-speed limit. As such, Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong - he extended him into territory not previously considered, as it were. Jan >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. > >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about > >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. > > > >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation > > More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed. For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum. In article <2a0cceff.0312191523.7cc1369c@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<gOIEb.35$_4.20857@news.uchicago.edu>... >> In article <3FE2FEF5.F56C615D@mediasec.de>, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen@mediasec.de> writes: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum. No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not*** defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent): 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial translation. 2) The generator of spatial translations. 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is homogenous. Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And, again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original mv becomes a "derived result" Keep in mind that electromagnetic waves *do* have momentum, *within* classical physics, even though they're massless. That should suffice to make it clear that p = mv is *not* "the classical definition" of momentum, just a special case. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > In article <2a0cceff.0312191523.7cc1369c@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: > >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<gOIEb.35$_4.20857@news.uchicago.edu>... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original > mv becomes a "derived result" And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic version becomes yet another special case? Sigh. For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may appreciate it. I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time because drowning in a sea of fools. In article <2a0cceff.0312200557.18bd95fc@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >> In article <2a0cceff.0312191523.7cc1369c@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<gOIEb.35$_4.20857@news.uchicago.edu>... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic >version becomes yet another special case? Sigh. That's the idea. Instead of defining a whole bunch of things, you define a lagrangian and the rest follows. Mind you, once you follow this route, the various conservation laws become pretty much tautologies. Which is fine. >For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems >sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may >appreciate it. A very small fraction of a percent. >I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time >because drowning in a sea of fools. We're all ignorants, to this or other extent. The true division line is not between ignorant and knowledgeable but between those who are aware of their areas of ignorance and those who don't. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > In article <2a0cceff.0312200557.18bd95fc@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: > >> In article <2a0cceff.0312191523.7cc1369c@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > this route, the various conservation laws become pretty much > tautologies. Which is fine. Someday I still hope to understand Noether's theorem, and discover, as you say, that it is pretty much a tautology. Indeed, I've had the feeling from time to time -- as I'm sure you have -- that when one really understands something, most of the theorems become pretty much tautologies. In fact, you could take that as a measure of understanding. > >For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems > >sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may > >appreciate it. > > A very small fraction of a percent. I was going to go on to compare physics to, say, classical music. The percentage of humanity who can perform or compose on a world class level might be similar -- but at least some aspect of music is accessible to a much wider audience. But with physics, "accessibility" is about synonymous to "performance" ... though, hmm... The parallels actually run rather well. In both you fields have technically competent performers who have made but don't really seem to get it, and will never produce anything beautiful. You might also have something analogous to literal performance in a great lecturer -- I will presume Feymann was one -- who may elevate a prepared audience just temporarily beyond their ability. They really will understand for a few minutes, though it will slough off soon enough. > >I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time > >because drowning in a sea of fools. > > We're all ignorants, to this or other extent. The true division line > is not between ignorant and knowledgeable but between those who are > aware of their areas of ignorance and those who don't. Yeah ... and the truly rich man is the one who knows his own net worth, or something: but it helps if that net worth is in 8 or 9 figures. :-) In article <2a0cceff.0312201958.116c6498@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >> In article <2a0cceff.0312200557.18bd95fc@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<Q5MEb.39$_4.22526@news.uchicago.edu>... [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >tautologies. In fact, you could take that as a measure of >understanding. Quite often true. I recall Feynman writing, about math graduate students he knew in Princeton, that in their terminology all mathematical statements belonged to one of the categories: "trivial" or "nobody knows". >> >For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems >> >sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >"accessibility" is about synonymous to "performance" ... though, >hmm... Well, music is different, even though ... >The parallels actually run rather well. In both you fields have >technically competent performers who have made but don't really seem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >just temporarily beyond their ability. They really will understand >for a few minutes, though it will slough off soon enough. All true. Still, music is different, because it is not being processed by the intellect, it addresses the brain on some deeper, more primordial level. You get different combinations of tones and rhytms evoking very powerful emotions, even even you don't know anything about creating or performing music. With physics, well, you can't really bypass the intellect. So, you need a sufficient amount of intellectual baggage ... >> >I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time >> >because drowning in a sea of fools. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >worth, or something: but it helps if that net worth is in 8 or 9 >figures. :-) Hey, I would settle for 7, with no argument:-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > In article <2a0cceff.0312200557.18bd95fc@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: > >> In article <2a0cceff.0312191523.7cc1369c@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: > >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<gOIEb.35$_4.20857@news.uchicago.edu>... > >> >> In article <3FE2FEF5.F56C615D@mediasec.de>, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen@mediasec.de> writes: > >> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about > >> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic > >version becomes yet another special case? ... Ok ... just for fun, if it's not too much trouble in ascii, would you be able to write down the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle? In article <2a0cceff.0312210340.3ab5e2d0@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >> In article <2a0cceff.0312200557.18bd95fc@posting.google.com>, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<Q5MEb.39$_4.22526@news.uchicago.edu>... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Ok ... just for fun, if it's not too much trouble in ascii, would you >be able to write down the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle? Not a trouble, just had to look it up, has been a while. Anyway, it comes up to L = -m*c^2*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) or (nicer) in units where c = 1, L = m/gamma Note that if you take the case of v << c and develop the expression above in Taylor series, you get L = -m*c^2(1 - (1/2)*v^2/c^2 + ....) = -m*c^2 + (1/2)*m*v^2 + ... where the ... denotes higher order (negligible) terms. This recapitulates the classical free particle Lagrangian, except for the constant term which is of no consequence. The Lagrangian is only defined up to a constant (in fact even up to an arbitrary function of time alone). Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" Hang on, I was busy there winding a superconducting coil around the moon and lining the far side with solar cells to attract metal objects from the Earth to the moon....:-) Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ | > OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it | > without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Bob Kolker |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.