I dont think i called it the right thing but just wanted to ask a question about a picture i saw. The picture was a spaceship taking off from the ground but it made me think of something odd. We have propulsion for our spacecraft and the craft i saw looked like it was not pushing but pulling or sucking up. The only form of flight i can think of propels or has thrust but is there a form that doesnt push but pulled. its more like space moving around the ship instead of the ship traveling through space. just something going on through my head and i dunno how far we have gotten with physics and if there is something that does not need thrust or uses magnetic like flight.

 

Are you thinking about ion thrusters?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

 

Are you thinking about ion thrusters?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Looks like that but im thinking of a non propulsion. Probably just fantasy but i can see it work in my head. Just dunno how

 

Are you thinking of a "space elevator"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Something similar has been done with a rope fed from an airplane flying in a prescribed circle such that the rope meets the ground rotating rather slowly, but not moving laterally.

 

I dont think i called it the right thing but just wanted to ask a question about a picture i saw. The picture was a spaceship taking off from the ground but it made me think of something odd. We have propulsion for our spacecraft and the craft i saw looked like it was not pushing but pulling or sucking up. The only form of flight i can think of propels or has thrust but is there a form that doesnt push but pulled. its more like space moving around the ship instead of the ship traveling through space. just something going on through my head and i dunno how far we have gotten with physics and if there is something that does not need thrust or uses magnetic like flight.

My school pysics teacher was always heavy on making it clear that there is no such thing as pull or suck, only push. Any examples you can think of reduce to pull when you look closely.

 

Looks like that but im thinking of a non propulsion. Probably just fantasy but i can see it work in my head. Just dunno how

If what you mean is a reaction-less drive, they don't exist and per current physics won't ever exist.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReactionlessDrive

A reactionless drive or reactionless engine is a piece of advanced technology invented to make life easy for those Science Fiction writers.

For our purposes it is sufficient to define the drive as follows: "any form of self-contained propulsion not based around expulsion of fuel or reaction mass". In other words the drive will propel a vehicle, almost always a starship, anywhere it wants to go without having to waste space carrying propellant. Sometimes authors will try to control these drives by requiring a power plant to make it keep working but more than a few will keep working forever.

Obviously this would be an awesome invention! So why don't we have them? Well, naively it would shatter the fundamental basis of all physics since Isaac Newton, as detailed here, and modern theories predict effects too small to be useful. Thoughtful Speculative Fiction writers have also noted that any sort of reactionless drive would provide those who possess it with an infinitely powerful weapon (compare Weaponized Exhaust, which is the use of a reaction drive as a weapon). Note that this would not be a problem if they required truly massive amounts of power note but many examples don't.

 

My school pysics teacher was always heavy on making it clear that there is no such thing as pull or suck, only push.

Fundamentally, push or pull is completely arbitrary, just different perspectives of an "interaction". But I'm curious how your teacher explained that electrostatic attraction is a push.

 

I think thats a terrible thing to teach becauase it puts a mental block on the possibility of it. If u give in to laws of physics then i think you will be less likely to experience or see things that defy physics because your brain has it registered as not real or possible. Gotta keep an open mind cause our brains are very creative cause its really weird to see it happen in my head. There is no push its like sucked up.

 

I think thats a terrible thing to teach becauase it puts a mental block on the possibility of it. If u give in to laws of physics then i think you will be less likely to experience or see things that defy physics because your brain has it registered as not real or possible. Gotta keep an open mind cause our brains are very creative cause its really weird to see it happen in my head. There is no push its like sucked up.

Are you kidding? Let's just teach that Unicorn tears allow for anti-gravity too.

 

Absolutely. It's called a warp field. And if you believe in space-time.....it should be possible.

 

Absolutely. It's called a warp field. And if you believe in space-time.....it should be possible.

If you understand space-time then you know what's really possible using that construct of the universe.

 

Till an unknown variable is added like samething from outer space. And how do u know they dont produce anti gravity. Lol its called just staying open to all possibilities. Were on earth and there are billions of other places with maybe different elements with different properties.

 

My school pysics teacher was always heavy on making it clear that there is no such thing as pull or suck, only push. Any examples you can think of reduce to pull when you look closely.

I agree with this statement.

 

A magnetic field can suck and pull. It can also contract and squeeze. An E field can suck too. Gravity sucks also. And they even say space.....has a pigeon toed suck.

If there was not an equal pull to a push..........solids would change size easily.

 

A magnetic field can suck and pull. It can also contract and squeeze. An E field can suck too. Gravity sucks also. And they even say space.....has a pigeon toed suck.

If there was not an equal pull to a push..........solids would change size easily.

We all know that and we know its unusable in real-life engineering devices.

 

When a gravity wave is emitted........why doesn't it go in..........instead of going out?

Is a gravity wave, anti-gravity? It flees from a gravitational source right? Does it interact with other gravity? Then why not back in? Gravitational disturbances flying thru space. Does a gravity field suck in other gravity fields like magnetic u?

Shouldn't all starlight twinkle, be blurry and change color? Space should be full of these distortions....just like EM is/does.

I would suspect a resultant earth/solar/system gravitational change, plate movement, a gamma flux or a neutrino flux before I would suspect a gravity wave.

13 billion years of space displacement........sure can't tell from looking.

 

If what you mean is a reaction-less drive, they don't exist and per current physics won't ever exist.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReactionlessDrive

While I agree that a reactionless drive doesn't exist (and here I bow my head in sadness for the EM Drive fiasco ... and then move on). I'm not sure that saying it won't ever exist is the right thing either... Saying that implies that we presume to know everything there is to know about physics already ... what if someone in the far future invents a propulsion system based on dark matter ? ... we don't even know what dark matter is, so we don't know what use we could have for it either... why shut the door on that possibility? Scientists (or more accurately, alchemists and amateurs) used to think that heavier than air aircraft were impossible... I'm just say'n...

 

If we could discover the true cause of gravity.......maybe we could invert and amplify it.

 

While I agree that a reactionless drive doesn't exist (and here I bow my head in sadness for the EM Drive fiasco ... and then move on). I'm not sure that saying it won't ever exist is the right thing either... Saying that implies that we presume to know everything there is to know about physics already ... what if someone in the far future invents a propulsion system based on dark matter ? ... we don't even know what dark matter is, so we don't know what use we could have for it either... why shut the door on that possibility? Scientists (or more accurately, alchemists and amateurs) used to think that heavier than air aircraft were impossible... I'm just say'n...

Those alchemists and amateurs must have all been blind and never seen a bird fly.

A reaction-less drive would mean we could have a 'free' energy source with the power to destroy entire planets with a weapon mass the size of a battleship. I just don't think (with very good evidence) the universe gives anything away for free. ALL new physics must be compatible with reality to the approximation of current physics and what we currently measure across the universe. Any theory that invalidates both the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of momentum will require extraordinary evidence to be proven valid in the face of every observation of energy and matter since cavemen hit each other with bones.

Dark matter and Dark energy are mainly place holders ('we don't know how to explain these observations'/"we know how to explain these observations, but we don't know what causes them") for things we don't understand, something is happening that makes current theory incorrect in some big way so we've have correction factors to make the numbers match what we see.

 

A reaction-less drive would mean we could have a 'free' energy source with the power to destroy entire planets with a weapon mass the size of a battleship.

That's what I fail to understand. And obviously, it seems that you have a better understanding than me about this subject. Why would a reactionless drive violate the laws of physics as we understand them? Why do you say that it would be a free energy source? I'm trying to picture the situation you're describing in my head, but I haven't been able to. Obviously, I'm sure it has to do with relativity and the famous E=mc² equation. I just don't see the connection.

Any theory that invalidates both the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of momentum will require extraordinary evidence to be proven valid in the face of every observation of energy and matter since cavemen hit each other with bones.

Agreed. Any new discovery has to be compatible with our current model. And yes, formal proof, and reproducibility of experimental data is are a must for anything to be taken seriously by the scientific community, and not just by quacks. History is full of scientific fiascoes ... whatever happened to the cold fusion fad?