|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
21 November 2024 16:32
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Virtual Universe |
| Subject: |
Slingshot theory of propulsionless space travel |
| Question: |
Greetings!
There is a new propulsionless space travel method that is being debated at 4chan in the past 2 weeks, not reaching consensus. Naysayers go for 'it breaks physics', yaysayers go for 'engineering can use physics in non-natural ways'.
Originally starting here: https://www.minds.com/blog/view/845278366950309888 and simplified versions popped up, https://www.minds.com/media/848613401975709696 for example, with emulated proof of the crucial step presented here: https://youtu.be/e6T603au8Wo
The crucial step, whether an open slingshot will move exactly as the closed slingshot if pulled with the same force (regardless of how much rope it coils) by a motor on the pellet, or not. The 'not exactly' version of moving is what proves slingshot theory. These are technological objects that can synchronize motors as needed to achieve the net movement objective.
It may be natural to regard any of the above with skepticism, more so to not even look at them, because why should you? But, this is freaking propulsionless space travel, and it breaks no laws of physics, especially conservation of momentum, which it actually uses to make the work transformations that result in net movement in frictionless environment. I think even the abominable 'no'man should make an exception and look a bit deeper into this. Yet...
I am coming here as guided by naysayers to meet similarly crazy people. I find them crazy, and the people here rational.
Cheers!
|
| Date: |
6 June 2018
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| |
No answers yet |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
