Justin Thyme the Second

Consider that the greatest mass by a huge factor is NOT the astronaut, but the rocket and fuel needed. Just scaling down the micro-human does not reduce the actual overall mass very much. Otherwise, hobbyist rockets carrying virtually no payload would be reaching the moon. No matter how small the payload, the rocket still has to have enough fuel to allow the mass of the fuel to reach escape velocity.

@@AlexP Also from the same source "The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed." 'Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. and onto the Lord what is the Lord's.' was their guiding principle, and any such morality issues around abortion, homosexuality, honesty, truth, lying, killing (capital punishment), racism, discrimination, female equality, and such were the Lord's domain, not Caesar's. God was the ultimate authority in these matters, not the State.

@AlexP "Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity." str.org/w/the-faith-of-our-fathers – Justin Thyme the Second

ctd "We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." [Benjamin Franklin, quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209.]" Same reference

ctd "And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? "

"And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? "We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' "

Of interest, the US Constitution is particularly silent on many issues regarding morality or principles of right/wrong (as opposed to lawful/unlawful) because, at the time it was written, the US was in every sense a God-fearing country where paganism was unknown, and essentially everyone was a member of one or the other God-fearing religions. The Founding Fathers believed that it was the right and domain of God, and God alone, to judge morality and the 'goodness' or 'evilness' of individuals at judgement day and that Americans would always govern their behavior out of their fear of God.

So if the current world time was caused by all of the events of the time just before it, then the current world caused the just-previous world to be. And so on and so on. If something causes something else in the future, then there HAS to be backwards causality - what existed now had to have caused what is to be. That in essence is the grandfather paradox of time travel. The presentg caused the past to be what it was.

Incidentally, there is nothing inherently wrong with backward causality in a purely deterministic world. If B comes before A, and B leads ot A, then we say that B causes A. But in a deterninistic world, the fact that we have A means that B MUST HAVE existed. Therefore, A caused B, in the sense that without A there could be no B. But C came befire B, and B is dependent on C having occured,Therefore the existence of B means that C muist have occured, B caused the existence of C to be mandated.

But if a pixel transverses more than one pixel between frames, it is no longer contiguous with the pixel beside it, unless both pixels transverse in the same direction by the same number of pixels, an unlikely but still probablistic possability and whatever 'object' the combined pixels formed is no loger contiguous, unless it was all combined into one quantum equation. The trick is the algorythm of the probability function of pixels between frames, like a 3D game of life conwaylife.com.

Therefore the units of 'c' are frames per second. Since every pixel experiences the same frame rate, 'c' is constant everywhere. However nothing prevents a pixel of information from 'decohering' anywhere in the space, therefore no real limit on speed if speed is defined as 'number of pixels apparently shifted per frame'. But if the fastest contiguous speed is defined as the transformation being limited to no more than one pixel transversed over per frame, then 'c' determines the fastest speed.

In this model. relativity is impossible because motion is impossible. And the transition from one frame to another only depends on the state of the last frame and probabilistic 'actions' on each quantum pixel. Therefore 'time travel' can not exist because only two frames ever exist - the previous frame and the new frame.The constant 'c' is really just the frame rate. Nothing can exist between frames - there is either one frame at one instant of time, and the next frame at the next instant.

A really intersting viewpoint arose from Zeno's arrow paradox that tried to prove motion was impossible. plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno It posits that what is reallyhappening is like stop-motion animation, whare time is really the transition from frame to frame. In this regard, the universe is like an entirely pixilated space whare the pixels are the size of a Planck length, and each pixel in the universe changes from frame toframe based on probability.

The AMERICAN scientific commuity has embrced Einstein, to the point where the physics departments of AmericanUniversities refused to hire or comnsider any professors with any other perspective. That is part of the reason why America has not won a Nobel prize in physics in decades. All of the advancements are in areas that have left Einstein far, far behind.

That is, the universe started not with a 'Big Bang', but with the instantaneous manifestation of this field.The universe did not inflate, it was 'generated' as a 'field'. The entire concept of fields and bosons are just an analogy to explain or define terms in some mathematical model. Insread of 'field', the ancients called it 'aether', and really I think it was a useful analogy, a placeholder, that was unfortunately cast aside, instead of being reimagined in the spirit of quantum physics..

The closest candidate is the Higgs Field, which univerdally/equally implements inertia in all other frames of reference. Personally, though I have no proof yet, I believe this universal field came into existence universally everywhere in the universe in an instant, along with its boson, which then defined every other boson/field.

I am sure you are aware of my anti-Einstein stance, in that I firmly believe there IS a fundamental universal frame of reference, that determines and defines c (not the speed of light, but the universal constant which has the units distance/time, but is not the speed of anything). Perhaps many other (if not all) constants as well. It has as its essence a universal field that defines/determines/bounds the universe and everything in it.

Every time I see that bit about multiple frames of reference, and the second trip forming a loop that takes one intoi the past, it reminds me of Zenos Paradoxes, particularly 3.1, The Dichotomy. Someties elicited as the toroise and the hare. Just because one can imagine it, and model it mathematically, does not make it true. The paradox is easily resolved when one considers the Planck Length, wherein nothing can be fuirther divided.

@BMF The Alcubierere drive does not HAVE to be operated FTL. But I have never seen anything really convincing about FTL resulting in arriving before it leaves. It WILL arrive before the light of it's departure, but it will STILL be 'after it leaves'. There is that 'simultaneity' thing. Completely messed up in the Alcubiere bubble. If you take your relativistic bubble with you, time does not dilate.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Your 'diminishing mass' adjustment only applies to thrust that requires reaction mass. Given a rocket that, for instance, has the reaction mass teleported in, as it is consumed, faces the same limitation as this rocket. Also, the 'laser sail' rockets have this velocity limit. My point is, NO rocket can have a continuous thrust and acceleration beyond the kinetic energy threshold.

Or the equation for kinetic energy can not be consistent across all velocities, or the equation for kinetic energy has to have some built-in law of Diminishing Returns factor.

I do not consider stack exchange as a legitimate reference. My point is, no rocket engine can increase the rocket velocity beyond the point where the kinetic energy exceeds the total energy input, else at some point all rockets turn into a perpetual motion machine. Accelerate, slam into a heat sink, collect the energy, use it to accelerate the rocket again beyond the intersection of the curves, slam it into a heat sink, repeat ad nauseum, more energy is retrieved than put into the system. Therefore, at some point, the energy of the thrust can not lead to an increase in velocity.

If you look carefully at the analysis in my first quote, by extension this graph, and thus this limit, does not just apply to this engine, it applies to ALL engines. No engine using ANY type of thrust can accelerate at a constant rate beyond a limit where the kinetic energy of the rocket exceeds the total energy of the thrust (delta v) that got the engine to that velocity. Any rocket, any form of thrust that is linearly constant, has a Law of Diminishing Returns on its velocity determined by its kinetic energy. Under constant acceleration, the graph of the instantaneous velocity is not linear.

The engine could work, and still not be a perpetual motion machine.

@causative Indeed, even though one can imagine something exceeding the kinetic energy/energy input boundary if taken in isolation, there are always other factors in play that prevent any engine from crossing it. Just because the limit exists, and crossing it produces a perpetual motion machine, does not automatically mean that this engine does indeed cross that limit. The engine might work, but it would also be subject to all of these other factors which have not yet been considered.

@causative I am not sure the photon rocket has much to do with this. But suppose you gather the photons from the sun - say a photon rocket in the inner solar system? Or photons beamed up by a laser beam? Constant refueling. So what if we do not yet know how to do it. Except, well, there are other factors that limit the kinetic energy/input energyequation, just like I am sure therre are with this engine. The enginre can work without it having to be a perpetual motion machine.

If it does work, but not as a perpetual motion machine (there are unforeseen restrictions on its operations that prevent the kinetic energy from becoming larger than the applied energy, it could be a very low powered maneuvering thruster but never cross the threshold. Just like all other engines that have restrictions that prevent them from crossing the threshold. The existence of the threshold itself is not sufficient proof to discredit the engine.

My frame challenge is that it just might NOT be a perpetual motion machine, it just might work, but with limitations that restrict it from becoming one.

Of course, all bets are off if it turns out that inertia can be manipulated somehow. Kinetic energy and inertia are two sides of the same coin. Without inertia, there is no kinetic energy. In some sense, I get the idea that the theory behind this rocket engine alters inertia, and thus the kinetic energy of the system. But then, since your idea requires kinetic energy to produce your 'free energy', it is dead in the water. No inertia, no kinetic energy, no free lunch.

Your 'diminishing mass' adjustment only applies to thrust that requires reaction mass. Given a rocket that, for instance, has the reaction mass teleported in, as it is consumed, faces the same limitation as this rocket. Also, the 'laser sail' rockets have this velocity limit. My point is, NO rocket can have a continuous thrust and acceleration beyond the kinetic energy threshold.

Or the equation for kinetic energy can not be consistent across all velocities, or the equation for kinetic energy has to have some built-in law of Diminishing Returns factor.

I do not consider stack exchange as a legitimate reference. My point is, no rocket engine can increase the rocket velocity beyond the point where the kinetic energy exceeds the total energy input, else at some point all rockets turn into a perpetual motion machine. Accelerate, slam into a heat sink, collect the energy, use it to accelerate the rocket again beyond the intersection of the curves, slam it into a heat sink, repeat ad nauseum, more energy is retrieved than put into the system. Therefore, at some point, the energy of the thrust can not lead to an increase in velocity.

If you look carefully at the analysis in my first quote, by extension this graph, and thus this limit, does not just apply to this engine, it applies to ALL engines. No engine using ANY type of thrust can accelerate at a constant rate beyond a limit where the kinetic energy of the rocket exceeds the total energy of the thrust (delta v) that got the engine to that velocity. Any rocket, any form of thrust that is linearly constant, has a Law of Diminishing Returns on its velocity determined by its kinetic energy. Under constant acceleration, the graph of the instantaneous velocity is not linear.

and is the freeze ray still trying to remove that heat energy? I have seen bearings melt from friction. A shaft rotating in a bearing that was frozen would do it. How much heat is removed by the freeze ray, how quickly, how sudden is the thermal shock, how quickly do the coils burn out and short, what happens first, who's on second? Wait, Watt's on second, Who's on first.

Going back to a former point, how fast does the tank fall to 1 K? We have a few things happening at once. The tank has a great deal of heat energy sucked out of it (instantaneously?) the parts freeze up at a temperature much higher than that, so somewhere along the time curve. The field collapses and the current is enhanced by the lower temperatures, the heating effect of the current and the shattering material is attempting to raise the temperature,

I posit the energy to break the bonds at that temperature would not be adequate to cover all of the energy released. A good hammer blow would fracture the material. If one considers that the entire forward momentum of the tank would be transferred back through the drive chain if everything froze instantly, that is F=ma. It is not kinetic energy, as that equation does not have 'time' as a variable. If time is considered, then your equation becomes F=ma from the v^2/2 part becoming delta-v/time

@PeterCordes As for the difference between freezing the device and freezing an ice layer, there is an interesting reply that indicates the ice around the tank would not effectively lower the tank itself to a low enough temperature. So yes this discussion assumes freezing the tank. I am not convinced that one could shatter the various moving components in the tank and NOT create a lot of frictional heat

@PeterCordes "For all the freeze ray was able to lower the temperature, I am afraid you would paradoxically end up with a very melted piece of equipment from all of the energy released." This was not just from the electrical energy released. but all of the mechanical energy. F=ma, If the mechanisms stop rotating and moving, the 'a' part (as in deceleration) would be a steep slope, and all of that released force would be converted to heat energy. The friction from the siezed parts.

But the melting only has to occur in a local area, not the entire device. Since I take it the freeze ray stops freezing after it is applied, the cooling of the motor after the ray has stopped and the field collapses would come from its environment, through heat inertia and conduction, a local melting of the windings, making the motor inoperable before it refreezes is not unlikely..

Does the alleged freeze ray freeze the outside exterior and not the device itself, or the entire device? A very big difference.

@PeterCordes Sorry, yes LC circuit, Slip of the fingers, It started out as RLC and I deleted the L instead of the C in my haste.

That can draw lot of current, and burn the motor out. If the freeze ray caused the ac motor shaft to jam, but the power still flowed, then the motor windings would get very hot and perhaps melt the system - an outcome I referred to in my original answer.

If you stop an electric motor suddenly, the result depends on what type of motor it is. If the field is produced by static magnets, then there is no field collapse, If it is an ac induction motor, where the ac frequency changes the field strength, then the results differ depending on if the ac supply line is disconnected or not. If the power remains on but the shaft stops, the ac supplied changing field still continues, inducing current in the windings, and you can get some extreme torque.

The theory behind an RC tank circuit, and its use in tuning circuits, is all about resonance. In a tank circuit, you can have extreme current and voltage without adding any extra power, the trick is that the current and voltage do not peak at the same time. When you have the extreme voltage, you have no current flowing, and when you have extreme current flowing, you have no voltage.

Lenz's Law states that the collapsing field will try to generate sufficient voltage to keep the current flowing, and if no current can flow, then the voltage spike is huge. If the inductor (coil) is shorted, then no voltage spike, If the current flow is cut (by a switch or break) then the voltage spike is huge.

I left out a word, sorry. "the rate of change of the current through the conductor that generates the huge [change in the] magnetic field.' It's all about the collapsing field, a static non-collapsing field induces current in a moving coil. That was the second part of my statement. It is the collapsing field caused by the reduction in the current that produces the huge voltage.

If the system does not have enough capacitance to absorb the spike (current and voltage), interesting things happen. Especially in unprotected computers. But I have changed the wording somewhat.

Tesla had a lot of fun by slowly charging a capacitor, then discharging it through a coil, and when the capacitor was fully discharged, watching the sparks fly as the coil collapsed. One of the greatest dangers to appliances in a sudden power outage is the collapsing field of all of the motors suddenly inducing extremely high voltages in the system.

@PeterCordes Induction and induced EMF, it is the rate of change of the current through the conductor that generates the huge magnetic field. Faraday's Law. In a generator, it is the speed that the rotor is traveling with respect to the surrounding field. If the current that sustains the field is suddenly stopped, then the field will collapse in an exceeding short time, and thus the induced voltages will be extreme.