Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
Just a note |
| Question: |
It is possible to create inertial thrust by manipulating precession. A dozen people, maybe many more, have realized this and somehow managed not to be put-off by the world of opinion and accepted science.
Propulsion can never be gained by rotating parallel attached gyroscopes, but there are two ways it can be done. Designing and making the designs work has been the most difficult and time consuming thing I have ever been unfortunate enough to become entrapped in trying to do. I wish I had never seen a gyroscope. My life would have been fuller and richer. There are so many unforeseen restriction in the mechanics of nature in relation to gyroscopes, the how’s and whys, dos and don’t, allows and allows not, mays and may not do this and that, that the effort may remain for me a fruitless endeavor. My own limitations may be too much to overcome.
In any case, I am certain in my intense and concentrated area of study that it is possible to create inertial thrust by manipulating precession. I have advances far beyond knowing that, still there is no end in sight. This thing has robbed me of time and life and it may yet end up killing me. |
| Date: |
18 March 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/03/2010 15:14:02
|
| | When I was a kid I played around with relativity. I defeated Einstein’s postulations and created my own mechanical model to explain how and why light travels and why its speed limitations. After I had done that, I laid the theory aside. It is a mathematical theory beyond me anyway, but mechanically it is a jerk-you-around kind of theory that depends on how you wish to think. The few demonstrations that have been done that would seem to prove relative, I can dispel by offering the alternate arguments from the Newton-like mechanics I worked out so long ago. Still, relativity is a great theory that seems true in some ways.
In any case, I became aware that the premise of the paragraph below is a theory of relative based on solid mechanics that I believe, God willing, I may one day prove to be true by demonstrations.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I leave you with this thought.
We may know the laws of motion are true, but I intend to manipulate those laws in confined and forceful ways that would be imposable in nature. Nature would correct my manipulations immediately in the freedom of nature, if those actions ever occurred in nature, but I deny nature a way to unravel the things I do. Inertial propulsion will be a stand alone, contained, artificial condition and the universe and its laws outside this two cubic foot area of a machine will be forever true and unaffected.
This is pretty deep. The force from laws, controlled with reactions denied and rerouted would occur inside the machine, which would then be transfer in a relative way to the universe outside the machine, creating a force by a means otherwise not allowed in the universe-- acceleration created without reaction. It sounds crazy I admit.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick HILL - 24/03/2010 03:40:11
|
| | HI ,long time no hear,
just looking in past history and conveyence i see that i have a copycat writer,AS i did not give any correspondence with those answers...But what a farce anyhow just popped in to say hi and hope you know that when things get down i hope you know that i am always here in the shadows for questionable doubt into a circular perpetual theory. address 43 le2 8eg.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2010 05:01:09
|
| | Hi Patrick,
It was very nice to hear from you, Pat and good to know I have a friendly ear if I need one. I always knew I could count on you. I guess I’m ready to stop designing and start modeling. About time, isn‘t it?
Take Care,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patick - 02/04/2010 06:50:38
|
| | Inertial thrust comes about by precession, it is so obviously clear___For everything i have said^it takes time. For everything i see^i wait upon the.For all thereafter lesser me.To generate a combined^For all i see is your inputactively summise of connection precluding direction ......BUT HEY....thats not up 2 me but yours to C.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/04/2010 14:42:58
|
| | Pat, what you say is especially intuitive.
“Inertial thrust comes about by precession, it is so obviously clear. For all I see is your imputatively surmise of connection precluding direction.”
We never think of it that way, but yes. As the flywheel goes around it moves from one place to another, changing directions all the while, and there is never a rearward reaction. The problem you see is the motion circles and never leaves the space in the circumference in circles in, but it dose move from point to point without reactions. Therefore you are right in a sense. Precession is inertial thrust.
You say my surmising precludes a direction. Of course you mean linear direction. But you must go to another post to see about that. ( Just below is the HELP ME OUT POST.) Getting constant direction from the motion of precession is where all the headaches begin. I have the know-how finally to do that and that is what that post is all about. It includes reasoning-out the mechanics to get direction.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 09/04/2010 04:31:23
|
| | The mechanics of new nature,is difficult in the enviroment o doos+ an donts-
IIt IS not manipulation but man calculation of circular primes or spark points.
U gave me manipulated precession,,,,I gave u a chance on thrust holdings within a body.....so do u retire or work with me on this?????? cmon glennn intrigued jus one bit?????
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/04/2010 20:42:28
|
| | Hi Pat,
I am deeply involved in creating manipulate precession. Though that is not particularly easy, it is not really difficult. Father manipulating the forces that occur in manipulated precession, in such a way as to give linear propulsion, is very hard to do. So I guess my plate is too full to take on any more assignments and different approaches. I do thank you very much for the offer. Thank you, Pat and I may one day give you a different kind of manipulated precession cheaply enough that you can experiment with it, theorize with it, or build from it. Thanks again for your interest.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 21/04/2010 02:56:18
|
| | I do not need to theorise on any newtonian new day math............as i will be out of here by then.
But jus look at one an one only in a circle 367 points outer 359 inner, both prime numbers.
over 360 degrees they dont alighn,another and another they dont so when do they and what and for why do their sequences exist?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 10/05/2010 00:35:34
|
| | 63 41
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Raymond Gurnee - 25/05/2010 23:52:27
|
| | Here's what I am thinking. Maybe you've already been on this thought before. Gravity is the effect of F=ma with the acceleration not being the mass's movement but the ether flow into the Earth, but not over time squared. But the flow is a constant speed so it's the ether's increasing density causing the same effect of acceleration. On a flywheel, visualize a single molecule or atom on the flywheel edge. As a force is applied normal to the plane of the flywheel rotation, the particle's apparent or slight motion in the direction of force causes the side of the particle moving into the ether (accelerating) to absorb a greater amount than the force applied side. This absorption manifests as a rotation force on the leading edge of the particle that is parallel to the applied force and in the same direction and a counter force on the trailing edge. This is a similar principle as like gravity. So every particle has a torque applied at the point of the force applied (the magnitude is cosine). This torque is translated through the flywheel such that it appears as precession. The torque is from the "apparent" acceleration. Linear propulsion can be created from within a box by reaction to the ether. Comments?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2010 03:32:16
|
| | Hi Raymond,
Modern convention has it there is no such thing as an ether. I disagree with convention and jump on your boat and say that it is real and Einstein was wrong. This is so complicated I won’t attempt to go into the ‘how‘ and ‘why‘ of it all. The continued general disbelief however in a Newtonian inspired either, is prevalent. You and I insist the ‘ether’ is real and I say it controls the universal speed limits! So. . . . good for you, Raymond.
You say, “The torque is from the "apparent" acceleration. Linear propulsion can be created from within a box by reaction to the ether. Comments?" Yeah, ha! That’s pretty damned complicated, Raymond!
I am finally working hard, finally after all these years. All these thoughts you inspire may become immaterial, if I will be successful in my work. I may be able to prove inertial propulsion is, or isn’t possible- - - period- - - t end of the question. Give me a few more months and I will contact you again.
Nice to hear from you, Raymond. I kind of enjoyed it,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 11/06/2010 01:05:28
|
| | It does leave space of cicumferance in.....
IN A CONICLE upward motion 4 every radial turn there is a rise of (f) this is an amount created by, firstly the lengh of the linear line that had risen but shortened by the conicle shape having lesser and lesser circumference. Secondly by as the base circumferce was marked in degree incruments of 359 segments.As the circumfernce reduced as the line rose from the base of the cone upwards at a rate of (f) per revolution leaving measurement markers of the linear distance of the circumference as it rose upward but reducing its circumferenc inward all the time, such obviosly making its upward measurement greater every revolution.
Then these markers in degrees of 360 would be those firing points of the outer body to the cotton reel shaped inner spindle at only 1mm away running the same but 359 incruments or vice versa.
As the shape of inner spindle is shaped like cotton reel to an outer body of the same then due to magnetic repultion then it would not drp nor lift nor even wobble within its outter encapsulating body. AS a spinning top spins like a gyroscope its mass is thrown out lateraly asin fluidicity therefore holding horizontal with no wobble.
...more 2 follow
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 11/06/2010 01:12:02
|
| | sorry running at the same but 367
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 24/07/2010 02:17:35
|
| | What about the quotient musical scales the compressed air of the drive engine produce?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 24/07/2010 06:13:35
|
| | Still so suprised no phone calls,but there again better be carefull ehhh.cos jus imagine innertial thrust as every day knolage for all 2 see but only after somewhat has shown such a simplistic combination.
Forgive me maybee i preclude dynamics, and postumate crude immaturity in my method n but conclude with arogance awaiting some higher interlectual guidance that never comes,./for reasons that stand out strongly....
You all talk bout it,who found what bout it,how explain bout it,but why what 4.
Work with it give me at least one bit of feed back about it n tell me in which ways i ave gone wrong xxx
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 15/10/2011 12:34:48
|
| | My o my creative nature, created nurture never works
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
