Question |
| Asked by: |
Ted Pittman |
| Subject: |
Boeing Company uses Inertial Propulsion |
| Question: |
F.Y.I.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/SPESIF.pdf |
| Date: |
28 May 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 16:31:00
|
| | Worrying, isn't it? If it were true, then it would be of great encouragement to everyone in this forum. But if it is not true, or if Boeing engineers are deluding themselves, would you really want to fly on one of their planes?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 16:51:16
|
| | PS: it IS theoretically possible to change the orbital distance without using reaction mass, but nobody is known to be using the method and, in any case, it does not involve gyroscopes..
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 28/05/2014 17:25:42
|
| | IGNORED
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 18:03:22
|
| | Harry, sweetheart, are you telling the world you don't like Stan? Do we need to know that? Everything he said is right on and it is finally time to challenge the confusion. Now don't you go away from me. I love Sandy as you do, but it is past time to exert the truth. You are an engineer, for God's sake.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 28/05/2014 18:37:54
|
| | Hi Glenn,
If you mean with "world" the forum here then yes.
I don't like impolite and/or disrespectful guys.
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 19:17:35
|
| | Hi Harald K.
OK. However you like; I will not dispute with you. I am losing friends an an alarming rate as it is. As for my sudden departure from the cordial avoidance of direct confrontation against what I knew was wrong for years; well I got tired. I had held my tong for years because of respect, earned respect I will say, and my affection for Sandy. I still feel that way. But look, you struggled for the longest time trying to reason out what saturation point meant. It had no president. It means that increasing the speed of motion at some point has no effect on a particular reaction, is this correct? Then why did you have to struggle for mounts? was it the phraseology? or did you struggle?
If it should be the point of the forum to get physic right, then we should get it right if we can, I think. I am truly, absolutely sorry if my friend that I like so very much ends up less than loving me. But as to getting the physics right, Stan is doing that.
I send my best thoughts to you and Germany, my friend, and may my other friend forgive me someday,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 28/05/2014 19:30:56
|
| | Wow.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 21:16:35
|
| | Who is being impolite? I have simply been stating opinions based upon the best available evidence. If I were being impolite, I might ask how somebody comes to be regarded as an expert on something which he has singularly failed to demonstrate.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/05/2014 13:04:49
|
| | Hello Glenn,
I don't know neither you nor Sandy or any other forum member in person and thus we are neither friends nor do I here "love" somebody. However, for me there are likable and dislikable persons and you belong to the likable group. :-)
Hello Stan,
Maybe I was impolite too. Sorry for that. I do not understand the purpose of your questions and comments. It seems your are sure to know everything about gyro and flywheel behavior, so what are you looking for here in this forum? To schoolmaster others about correct way of scientific thinking and expressing?
Maybe you are not covinced about your knowledge and hope to find answers here? In this case ask or discuss your questions and we will try to help if possible.
Basic discussions about who is right and who is wrong will lead to nothing else than to a waste of lifetime for all participants. You should also not expect that anybody may reveal all his ideas and knowledge.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Stan Smith - 29/05/2014 15:58:53
|
| | Harald,
the thing is: you might think that it is arrogant to say that there is no mystery about gyroscopes and that everybody here is kidding themselves.
But, I think that it is even more arrogant to dismiss hundreds of years of experiment and theory without at least taking a look at it. Ordinary textbooks are, indeed, inaccurate - even wrong - in their gyroscope coverage, Rotation alone is always treated badly. How many people here know that a non-spinning object moving in a straight line possesses angular momentum? It is all to do with frames of reference. Such ignorance certainly led Laithwaite astray: he once spent an entire article on 'proving' that linear and angular momenta are not separately conserved. The point is that scientists are very impolite to each other, if they scent an error, so the conclusions in those gyroscope treatises have 'been through fire' ,,, and survived.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/05/2014 16:45:55
|
| | Hi Harry,
Yes I do like you and thank you and I want to be likeable. If I didn’t, I would say this, “ How incredibly unnecessary is that explanation about about love and friendship. A dummy (not you) would know that, Harry. It is an affrontal and a correction to me. The two things you bellyaching about.”
But of course my fellow earthling I do not say that to you at all. Instead; I say good cheer you clever fellow, you and I mean it.
This fellow from out of the blue doesn’t need my puny support. He is capable, but excuse me Harry, I think we do need a knowledge-master. As to helping him, he is obviously more capable of helping us if he wishes. His style is a little aggressive though isn’t it, but very self assured and very correct. Maybe he didn’t get enough titty when he was a baby. Excuse me Stan.
Basic discussions about who is right and who is wrong will lead to the correct information given to all who may discern well, that is to say all who are capable of learning. Harry, com’on, when you know it is wrong, and you do, why not help the people who are trying to get it right?
Perhaps this is a bit left field, but I recall a general mind-set in Germany from an old book I own, “The Germans: An Indictment Against My People; by Gudrun Tempel”
First I should reiterate that I “LOVE” Germany and the people I knew.
Gudrun Tempe blamed the fear of involvement and the avoidance of correcting wrong-thinking on the resulting of his rise to power. I think she said something like, “When the drunken brown shirted routies would come through the towns in open trucks shouting juda, the people would close their shutters.”
So you see how dangerous gyroscopes are? They may have even caused the rise of Mussolini as well. My FRIEND it is only proper to correct what is taught wrongly.
Excuse my foolish meandering. I think you would have thrown beer bottles at the trucks as I know more about you than you might think. I have to go do some work now. If you won’t laugh, at least forgive me. I wish to be your FRIEND.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/05/2014 13:44:26
|
| | Hello Stan,
"... How many people here know that a non-spinning object moving in a straight line possesses angular momentum? It is all to do with frames of reference. ..."
I don't know how many. Is this important to know? Maybe angular momentum is stored, maybe not, depending on the arbitrary defined frame of reference.
Frame of references are in my opinion not the cause of any physical behavior of an object but may only help to understand the behavior.
If I drive with my car to my work I do not care about earth rotation itself, the curved earth path around the sun, rotation of our sun system, galaxy, etc. to find out with which effective velocity my car is moving.
This is not relevant for practical applications but maybe relevant for scientists and philosopher.
However, most or maybe all important inventions for practical applications were invented by clever practitioner and not by scientists.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Stan Smith - 30/05/2014 14:21:33
|
| | It is important for supposed academics to know that, so that they do not make fools of themselves. Laithwaite did just that in an article for Space magazine. He imagined a non-spinning plank being hit off-centre by a non-spinning bullet in outer space, thus sending the plank into a spin. He claimed that this proved that linear momentum could be converted into angular momentum. He just could not see that the angular momentum already existed in the system. One can only blame the textbooks for this. On the other hand, physics students regularly carry out Laithwaite's experiment on air-tables ... and the calculated momenta are all found to balance out, without interconversion.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
