Musk? rotfl

I have a neighbor who rides around in prototype cars with Elon, testing the automation. He says he's a cool guy, not to mention the richest person on Earth.

He and Elon drove around in a Cybertruck, testing the controls and handling. It had front seats but no rear seats. The back was filled with engineers and programmers sort of bunched up and rolling around. Sounds like fun.

His rockets sure work. Makes NASA and Boeing look like dorks.

Did he invent vertical landing and reuse of boosters?

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

How weird you are. And not in the good way.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

"L'eccessiva applicazione alle impressioni visive ottunde la capacità di vedere" [ Lao Tze]

It's interesting to ask google about the per cent of various countries' fluency in basic English.

Italy is around 30%

Germany 56

Russia estimated 30 to 60

Norway 95%

Mo went on a knitting tour (!!!) to Norway and said how nice it was, and that everybody spoke good English.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

the shuttle had reusable boosters

They splashed down in the ocean and had to be recovered and rebuilt. And killed some astronauts.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Google O-rings and Richard Feynman. What killed the astronauts was NASA hitting the launch button when the O-rings were too cold to work.

When one day Elon Musk convinces himself that he won't be able to colonize either the Moon or, much less, Mars with rockets, remind him that there is PNN (Non-Newtonian Propulsion)

Or if he wants a baroque practicable solution - as opposed to a confidence trickster's blatant rip-off - he could look at a Space Elevator.

Reactionless drives have never actually worked yet, so they don't really offer the kind of photo-opportunities that publicity seeking clowns look for.

Your anger at not even wanting to see What has been experimentally observed by many others is now an unphysical fact Typical of those whose brains are impaired by missile science.

The experimental observers who thought that they were observing a reactionless drive all turned out to have been deluded by ill-constructed experiments. Your posts do suggest that you don't know what you are talking about, so no rational observer is going to take you seriously.

The "brain impairment" you complain about is a capacity for assessing experiments with a critical eye. You could acquire it you had the wit and persistence to get scientific training, which seems unlikely.

I'm 83. I'm not going to colonise anything. The space elevator is impractical at present, but has no comedic element - unlike reactionless drives, which feature in lots of scenarios where gullible suckers get ripped off to comic effect. You look more like a gullible sucker than a greedy conman, but posting here could be seen as way of drumming up interest in a venue which law-enforcement doesn't find interesting.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

Elon is a lunatic.

AI Overview

The phrase "Sometimes a lunatic is what you're looking for" is a lyric from the Billy Joel song "You May Be Right,"{/nav>} {1, 2}. The song's lyrics suggest that sometimes, an unconventional or "crazy" perspective is necessary or even the most logical approach to a difficult situation.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Unfortunately, the PNN conflicts with the failed history of so-called reactionless devices.

I know countless non-PNN space drives that all suffer from the misfortune of not working because they are based on completely wrong physical assumptions. The bulk of reactionless believers refers to those who think they can bypass Newton using Newtonian mechanics :-)... like the Dean Drive... and/or gyroscopic effects :-)

Then came those with pseudo-physical principles that were never proven. Basically metaphysical delusions in which the metaphysical delusion applied to a so-called reactionless object would supposedly prove the delusion itself. I am talking about Mach's principle, the physicist and philosopher (see Wikipedia): Mach's principle is a hypothesis formulated by the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach in 1893, which states:

The inertia of any system is the result of the interaction of the system itself with the rest of the universe. In other words, every particle present in the cosmos has an influence on every other particle.

Something unfortunately NEVER experimentally tested. Mach's principle is essentially a philosophical hallucination that became physics because the inventor, after philosophy, turned to physics. :-)

Then recently came those who invented interactions with quantum substrates (the word 'quantum' is very trendy) SUBSTRATES NEVER SEEN BY ANYONE and therefore NO physical laws or worse that were supposed to work for unknown physical reasons, like the resonant cavity called with huge media hype 'Emdrive.' Emdrive, such a strange mechanism that (invented around 2001) never managed to reveal why it worked or if it worked or how it was even possible to make it work.

In short, I'm talking about so-called reactionless devices that all share one thing: being based on nothing, that is, on no EFFECTIVE AND VERIFIED physical principle, that is, on no physical law at all!

And let's move on to the PNN, which has always claimed that it works with the Lorentz force used in all electromechanical devices (electric motors) and involving mass, such as household appliances. And here come the distinctions that no one notices. The PNN is indeed based on the Lorentz force, but applied to open circuits because if it is used for open circuits, there is mathematical certainty that it can ALSO violate Newton's third law of action and reaction (which was not aware of electrodynamics)... and it's not me (rotfl) saying this, but others long before me.

At the end of

Here is a simple figure that shows that the Lorentz force also acts on a free charge (open circuit), as on page 6 of

At least in Europe, antennas, both television and amateur radio, are mostly on top of buildings. :-)

Antennas are indeed open circuits where very low current flows and they don't fly, because they are anchored to buildings. :-)

Decisive factors (such as low current or geometric configuration) make the push effects unnoticeable.

In many cases, inverted V dipoles are used mostly by amateur radio operators. :-)

Which confirms the saying: if you want to hide something, you should either place it or display it in an obvious way.

Obviously, I repeat, V dipoles that are anchored cannot fly, besides having very low current and high impedance.

I could go on further to point out how human beings are often obtuse when it comes to events that are shown in a blatantly obvious manner.

Our V-dipole PNNs are not made like those of antenna enthusiasts and, worse, much worse, lead to physical laws that, over a certain period of time, completely surpass Newton's laws (a very unpredictable fact). And this explains the motto I quoted from Lao Tze: "Excessive attention to visual impressions dulls the ability to see."

Surely you will be richer than Elon very soon.

Crazy ideas are necessary to break loose the static friction of old ideas. But one should also appreciate that if you generate zillions of crazy ideas, very few of them will actually work.

And if you obsess on one, you'll quit looking for more.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Worse than that, it's untestable, because we haven't got a separate universe in which to carry out any kind of comparison,

In other words reactioness drives are promoted by people who look exactly like confidence tricksters.

But yours is different?

Other confidence tricksters?

There may be a bibliopgraphy that asserts that. This user group includes some well-educated physicists, and none of them appear to share this opinion.

By Lorentz forces you appear to mean magnetic forces, and we've been exploiting them since Michael Faraday. The Kibble balance - which is now the internationally accepted mechanism for defining mass - depends on exactly that. A reactionless element in the forces generated would presumably create enough of an error that a national standards lab implementation would have picked it up.

Or don't actually generate any force.

If there were any there to notice.

but you can't cite any specific example.

An antenna cannot lead to a physical law. At best it could produce a physical effect that could not be explained by any known physical phenomenon.

Nothing you have posted here suggests that your antennas produce any kind of interesting physical effect.

If you can't set up a convincing physical effect - and the fact that you are telling us about your great discovery here strongly suggests that you can't - there's nothing to see.

cut

You’re even telling me and other in this NG that at the Italian patent office and the European one they understand nothing.

Patent: WO2022264177 - ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS

And even those who see our experimental tests understand nothing.

Nor why you can’t replicate a basic verification of pendulum test, and why understand absolutely nothing.... Translate from

Now you start to to make me understand clearly why even those at the European patent office

I add that you don’t even understand this fact: 20 years ago with very little PNN push, it was a scam done to others as well.

Dr. E.Laureti from Roma

cut...

Elon spaceship for Moon and Mars ... and hell