» Forum » DIY ideas »Gravitational inertial motor or Who needs Antigravity

Gravitational inertial motor or Who needs Antigravity

I would like to immediately clarify that we are talking about an engine, that is, a motor device that converts any energy (gasoline, electricity ...) into translational motion by interacting with the gravitational field surrounding us. A bit of history. I began to study the theory of gravity in my school years when I realized that modern science did not really know anything about this. I entered the university at the physics department and successfully graduated from it. He worked as a designer of electronic equipment and received a diploma of a patent specialist and metrologist, then perestroika, no matter what he did, continued to collect all possible information, read everything that he could reach and set up experiments by checking pieces of information put together - so the resulting theory has empirical roots. When the understanding of the current processes became complete, I began to turn, mainly via the Internet, to our pundits we managed to find addresses (pay attention to almost all articles on any serious topic without a return address) but there was no answer from anyone. As a result, kind people , I was told that there are many theories and in order to prove its viability it is necessary that it at least explain the processes taking place in the universe. I had to do astronomy, fussed with half a year, somewhat reworked the theory, everything fell into place. Negotiations started again, and again there was a kind person who suggested that the theory is good but not enough, but if I am able to create a device based on my theory that even if it doesn’t fly but without mass ejections and wheel drives will itself move in the chosen direction then it will be one hundred percent proof and then ...

The most difficult thing was to choose on the basis of what to make such a device - although hands grow from where it is necessary, but opportunities ... Hiking to a flea market began with a search for what might suit. I settled on two options as the most affordable - on a solid active body and on a liquid, surfing the Internet in parallel to he will be convinced that no one did this so that they would not be accused of plagiarism, thank God for three months while he was making a cart on gravel traction, he did not find anything.

It turned out such a design with such giblets. You can see in more detail:

As you probably saw, the trolley runs and runs quite cheerfully, not like eating creeping inertioids despite poorly centered gears and the absence of bearings. The internal structure of the converter itself is very simple took several pictures when disassembling

Two balls run in a circle in a system with a displaced center (which is very clearly seen from the traces of oil), the explanation is also elementary HIS is easy to understand. The SD line divides the movement of balls into two phases. If we trace the movement from point C, then the ball starts to move with acceleration — the circumference of the segments increases — at a constant speed of rotation of the central shaft, while stick 1 presses the ball while accelerating it and pushing away from it like a boat with an oar from the water, creating a thrust upward momentum the second ball moves with deceleration as the circumference of the segments decreases, while the ball presses on the stick 3 creating a thrust impulse again upwards. That is, when the balls move, thrust is generated in one direction. The second half does not suitable for compensating for the effect of a helicopter. After a year I came across an article on the website (type in Google) A GRAVITALLY INERTIAL ENGINE is POSSIBLE, which describes three device options, one of which is very similar to mine, with the only difference being that the question is posed - is it possible I already built. posted on YouTube. No one was interested. Another version of the gravure of the trolley, built on the basis of a liquid working fluid, did not even expose, and by the chance and breakdown of the computer all the photos and records were lost. The first phase - this can’t be because it can never be - I already felt it on myself. And the good people again say - This is nonsense, take a loan to build a flying model then ... You can try to build, but there are big doubts that even then it will change a lot. Because the forums are mostly chatter, there were those who said that he was a turner and that he would spit for him to create a model, but as soon as it came to help they were suddenly lost. And where I simply can’t imagine where to find sponsors for such a thing. there are studies with a higher mass conversion coefficient and with a change in traction in the selected direction at constant speeds for planar devices. Here is another confirmation of the correctness of my thoughts.

Not quite what I have but still - the address is visible. The question remains - And if the developer of the new is not a research institute containing hundreds of people and eating millions from the state. budget, and a loner is the state or whoever needs it. Strange, but in my life I made the most money on innovations - I was the first to master a technology or master a new technique. True, this is not a trifle, and everyone feels that there is nothing serious yet, the state is silent, and if there are obvious successes ......... After all, in recent years, experimenting, I noticed several very interesting effects related to gravity, say control the rate of natural radiation decay. Say nonsense, and dig around on the Internet and easily find the results of experiments in which the same device on different parallels of the earth gives different results significantly exceeding the statistical error, and the difference in the levels of the gravitational field is minuscule. Maybe for some it will sound blasphemy, but the acceleration of gravity at different parallels is different, but slightly different. with the last argument I propose to recall that the atomic bomb dropped by the Americans on the moon did not explode, and this experiment was by no means fools.

In one of the experiments, I managed to get more than 20 percent weight loss by an object in a certain chamber. And what kind of change is possible in military affairs ...

ButThe answer to the letter I sent to the President of Russia with a proposal to continue development at the state level - from which it follows directly that they and the SCIENTISTS alone will decide whether the state needs it, and those who don’t even understand what the movement is about or more precisely where does that come from. Try to find at least on the Internet, even in textbooks, the answer to the question - why the spinning top is stabilized in space, because this phenomenon has been studied and is widely used even in gyroscopes. And there are many such questions, my model also refers to them. From here I recall Krylov’s fable - how things are not useful, the prices without knowing her, the ignoramus about her is all good for the worse ....

Simply put, they kicked off, and it’s not surprising if no one can explain why and due to what the model is moving, but you can fantasize like the floor had a slope of as much as one two three degrees and therefore, due to vibration, the model got three kilos weighing in three seconds 10 km an hour or lament that there are not enough measurements taken with the help of special instruments that a simple person simply can’t have at home, and on the basis of this, we conclude that this is an optical illusion and you should not pay attention to it . But most of all, this is similar to the conclusion of the Inquisition which, and only it, can explain everything, and if it cannot be explained, it simply cannot be in principle, and it is not worth looking in that direction.

Well, the last, for those who want to repeat the design and make sure it is working. First, discard the balls as a working fluid for the simple reason that due to rotation during movement, the mass conversion coefficient is too low. Best weight on a telescopic (one or two guides) rods with small wheels at the edges, to reduce drag during movement. Ideally, you can provide for the sliding on the surface of the liquid or oil sprayed in front of the load. I see a lot of improvement options.

But the mathematical justification for this version of the engine. The calculation was made based on the calculation according to the physical formula of centrifugal force. And next, a device was calculated with realistic dimensions and a mass of 10 kilograms of cargo, the diameter of the working area is slightly less than a meter, so R1 is 0.5 meters and R2 is 0.4 meters at 10 revolutions per second ( this is 600 rpm), not so much when you consider that conventional low-speed electric motors make about 1000 rpm. I apologize in advance if something is wrong .....

Well, the thrust with such modest sizes and masses was not a little more than 78 876.8 newtons with a dimension of kg meter per second (a little more than 78 tons). Try to recount yourself, and suddenly I made a mistake because the numbers turned out to be very solid. And this is only with one half of the engine. If you are going to recreate this or a similar engine, write, I will tell you some nuances that I discovered and without which you might not be able to call it. You can call it whatever you like - an inertioid, an inertial engine, or like I am a gravity engine it doesn’t matter.

And one more little appendix. Some comrades call my construction an inertioid, this comes either from ignorance of the material, or from natural dullness. The fact is that in the inertioid there are two pulses in each period, one in the direction of traction and the other smaller in the opposite direction or just impulse of braking. In my design, despite its prostate, there is no reverse or inhibitory impulse, therefore it can be called an engine. Of course, you can call it an impulse, but then you will have to call an internal combustion engine as an impulse, and for some reason it doesn’t occur to anyone .
301 answer

Add answer

    • smilesmilesxaxaokdontknowyahoonea
      bossscratchfoolyesyes-yesaggressivesecret
      sorrydancedance2dance3pardonhelpdrinks
      stopfriendsgoodgoodgoodwhistleswoontongue
      smokeclappingcraydeclarederisivedon-t_mentiondownload
      heatirefullaugh1mdameetingmoskingnegative
      not_ipopcornpunishreadscarescaressearch
      tauntthank_youthisto_clueumnikacuteagree
      badbeeeblack_eyeblum3blushboastboredom
      censoredpleasantrysecret2threatenvictoryyusun_bespectacled
      shokrespektlolprevedwelcomekrutoyya_za
      ya_dobryihelperne_huliganne_othodifludbanclose
Now count how many atoms or mesons can be placed at a distance of 12700 km?


Imagine, finally, a segment, the length, as you say, of 12,700 km, and absolutely not having thickness !!!
AT ALL!!! No!!! Her (thickness) is simply NOT !!! (Khe-khe ... and for atoms ... and even for mesons, it IS) !!! There is no, but there IS!))))
This is not a voluminous, not even a PHYSICAL body! This is a GEOMETRIC AXIS !!!
Oh, dear God, you are my ..
.Ayayay, and hto here recently expressed dissatisfaction that he was sent to teach, so they themselves are sinful, well, if so the stones fly into my garden.

Well, I didn’t send you to teach physics as well ...))) I advised NOT to go into physics.)))) ... I advise you kindly .. Without reproaches and some kind of arrogance ... You are a humanitarian. It’s not yours ... You will not be given an understanding of these processes ... That is why it is so “easy” for most humanities to make “great discoveries” that “no one will recognize” ...
But, in something else, we ("mathematicians") will not be able to catch up with the humanities ...)))
to say “around” you need to talk about material things,

Here you are ... With the exact opposite "..."
Valery Ayayay, and hto here recently expressed dissatisfaction that he was sent to teach, so they themselves are sinful, well, if so the stones fly into my garden.
Here is your quote:
"Well, no-ee-etu in it of linear dimensions !!!.))) ... N doesn’t have any atom in it, nor even a meson!))))"
That I will say that the eta point has a size, because it is not a point at all, but an axis with a length of 12700 km! Now count how many atoms or mesons can be placed at a distance of 12700 km? So to whom:
"You need to start with an understanding of the basics ..."
?)))
But the fact is that there is nothing around which revolves, (the virtual point is empty, empty, and constantly changing) in order to say “around” you need to talk about material things, even if you didn’t talk about the point, but about the earth, these are different things.
And about friction of both rest and movement, he wrote that in this case there is no difference, it says
The discussion dealt with friction of motion.


WHAT I !!! We talked about friction at rest ...
Oho-hoyushki ....)))
Of course, some point should be there, but how to prove it is asked. I have an opinion that there is finally a vacuum, since the planet stretches during rotation and somehow (rock like a piston) creates a powerful charge there and the buckle comes from gravitational forces in all directions from this point.


Yes, even a vacuum, at least cast iron, at least deuterium, and even dystrophy!))))
What the hell difference, if it's a GEOMETRIC POINT !!! ??? ....
Well, no-ee-etu in it of linear dimensions !!!.))) ... N doesn’t have any atom in it, nor even a meson!))))
Oh-oh-oh-oh ... It's too early for you ... Well, honestly! ... (I’m kindly! I will not send to teach physics and mathematics, but ... I will advise ...
Do not try to operate with any definitions or physical laws yet ... You need to start with an understanding of the basic points ... How will you understand vector quantities without the concept of a geometric point, plane, space, and so on?
Korolev The physical nature of friction is not fully understood. There are various scientific schools that interpret the nature of friction from different perspectives, for example, from the point of view of metal physics, electrical nature, etc.
Friction is a combination of phenomena, for example, friction between a magnet and iron mainly depends on the attractive force of the magnet (magnetic field), between the molecules of friction substances is the interaction with the help of electrons (electric field), etc. (these are those that do not depend on weight)))

Friction in mechanics is classified into: motion friction (sliding friction, rolling friction), rest friction.
The discussion dealt with friction of motion.
It is good that you memorized physical formulas, but sometimes you need to include your logic and not replace the concept of gravity with the concept of friction (marching friction from other forces and not vice versa). If we say that the friction of the motion is zero (or also the rest friction is zero), then the body still holds on the surface due to gravity)))
Valery Ring for obstinacy in opinion))), certainly some point should be there, but how to prove, it is asked.I have an opinion that there is finally a vacuum, since the planet stretches during rotation and somehow (rock like a piston) creates a powerful charge there and the pull-out comes from gravitational forces in all directions from this point.
Ivan_Pokhmelev Yes, I do not argue, I wrote in another message (what is for Valery (12/02/2018 at 22:55) - read below and Korolev let him read too))) in principle, here we agreed. I would also like to say about the apogee and perigee that they differ by 5 km in the perigee, it is more inhibited (there is more air) than at the apogee
Sorry generously, but ....)))).
The center is the DOT !!!! Geometric point !!! Which does not have linear dimensions !!!
She has NO thickness, width, nor length !!!
Uh ... How can it rotate ???))))
Quote: New Standard
So I understood 15 minutes (in the question of Sergey Orlov), it’s conditional (to slightly stop not for a long time).
For a long time, not for long - no difference: it is worth stopping, that is, equating speed to zero, the fall will immediately begin, and not in a spiral, but namely downward.

Quote: New Standard
It will fall (at the ISS right now the speed is 7.9 m / s) starting from 7.9 m / s, gradually increasing the speed.

1. Not 7.9 m / s, but 7.9 km / s.
2. If the speed increases from 7.9 km / s, then there will be no fall, but a distance from the Earth.
3. If the impossible happens and the station instantly stops, then the speed when falling will increase relative to 0 m / s with an acceleration of about 8.7 m / s • s.
And I wouldn’t drag friction here
And from what, in fact, does friction force (weight (gravity)) not appear there (on what it depends)? smile
Valery I am tormented by doubts that the center of the Earth stupidly stands still, rather, it also rotates (albeit slower than the entire planet), it means there is no rotation around someone, and it (the center) is not densely similar to Earth, rather to the Little Sun) )). And I wouldn’t drag friction here, and here’s why: even if it (friction) were zero, the object (the fragment of the WORLD) would still be held by gravity. And the fact that someone says there: Learn physics, materiel, 10 commandments, all digits of Pi, etc. I also condemn this, so not culturally, a bad tone.
Ivan_Pokhmelev there 7.9 km / s (instead of 7.9 m / s) and starting to fall from a speed lower than 7.9 km / s, I didn’t finish
Ivan_Pokhmelev So I understood 15 minutes (in the question of Sergey Orlov), it’s conditional (to slightly stop not for a long time). Well, why immediately fall down? It will fall (at the ISS right now the speed is 7.9 m / s) starting from 7.9 m / s, gradually increasing the speed. But not immediately towards the "center of the Earth", but in a spiral, flying around the planet for some time (the center of the spiral is the center of the Earth), gradually decreasing the distance to the center of the Earth. When you reset the speed, then yes, it will immediately fall down
Quote: New Standard
Ivan_Pokhmelev I think you hastened to use the word "Porridge" through the strange-excessive speed of conclusions. One must be objective towards everyone.

Good. Let's consider in detail.
Quote: New Standard
When the ISS slows down for 15 minutes, it first flattens from the impact, then everything inside flies to the front wall and at that moment weightlessness will also disappear, then it will slowly fall to Earth

1. What does it mean: “ISS when to slow down for 15 minutes”? That beats me.((
2. "... first it will flatten out from the impact, then everything inside will fly to the front wall" - if it will be flattened, then how can something fly inside the already flattened object?
3. “will continue to slowly fall to the Earth” - if we assume that after stopping the angular velocity is zero, a fall will begin vertically downward with an acceleration of about 8.7 m / s • s. I do not think this is "slow."
how it can revolve around the earth

You yourself answered:
rather, it rotates with the Earth

More precisely, along with its surface!))). But, after all, it rotates the same !! Around the center of the earth!))). Is not it so????
Perhaps you did not understand by looking fluently ... Therefore, you did not refute it, right?
But Oltaviro, then, could not help but understand! Otherwise, he would not have denied it so confidently ... If someone had decided to convict another of ignorance of physics in such an arrogant form, then he obviously looked at it and thought over everything himself.
.. By the way, something this our "professor" does not answer !!!
The site was recently ...
There are two options: either going with thoughts to justify deployed, or ... another balabol, which asserts itself where it itself does not understand much ... In the second case, I think I really can’t wait for an answer))).
But it would be interesting to hear his version ... Maybe it’s not the friction force of rest that pulls us together with the surface of the earth ...))))
Ivan_Pokhmelev I think you hastened to use the word "Porridge" through the strange-excessive speed of conclusions. One must be objective towards everyone.
I quoted Sergey Orlov only instead of "stop correctly" used: "slow down", will we argue about the difference?)).
Here is a quote Sergey Orlov:
“... and the second question, if this“ World ”is correctly stopped, so that none of the crew is injured at the same height as will happen to the crew for the period of the first 10 -15 minutes."
You write that:
"Moreover, the ISS, when reduced to the dense layers of the atmosphere, will inevitably burn out completely or partially (depending on how it is inhibited)."
I did not argue that it would burn, although practice proves that a piece (especially heat-resistant) of the MIR station still flew to the ocean. And he described the process of falling after "slowing down", without the additional (and so understandable) dramatism of combustion in the atmosphere.
Valery, here is the question Sergey Orlov:
"Why is the Mir station and other satellites, even geostationary, orbiting the earth ..."
It was due to what generally satellites are in orbit and I think your "English humor" no one understood.
Your quote (Valeria):
"" Station "Mir" revolves around the earth under the action of friction. "
Even if it comes to a joke, how can it revolve around the Earth (MIR station) if it is at the bottom of an ken, rather, does it rotate with the Earth? Therefore, it’s not clear.
Quote: New Standard
When the ISS slows down for 15 minutes, it first flattens from the impact, then everything inside flies to the front wall and at that moment weightlessness will also disappear, then it will slowly fall to Earth
Porridge from speculative assumptions. What does it mean to slow down? The fate of the spacecraft depends on the direction of the pulse and its value.
Moreover, the ISS, when reduced to the dense layers of the atmosphere, will inevitably burn out completely or partially (depending on how it is inhibited). Some other spacecraft can land safely under certain conditions.
Valery A, so you were offended by Oltaviro, and I thought that it was an author of articles.

I really didn’t think that one could still be offended! (And what? Could it be? smiles )...
No ... I’m not offended by anyone.))). I just don’t like it when someone condescendingly laughs at someone else’s statement, NOT EXPLAINING why. (I will never allow myself to do this. I mean, you can laugh - you can’t explain it))))
frankly, in that message I also don’t completely agree with you, is it not clear whether it was a joke?

The joke was only partial - I played a joke on the typo of the author of the comment, which clearly confused the space stations (ISS and Mir))))
And if we talk about the "World", which, as everyone knows, has long been at the bottom of the ocean, then by what force does the bottom surface "pull it along" when the earth rotates ?? ... I believe that this is the force of friction ... do you disagree?
I do not think that Oltaviro does not know that the "World" lies at the bottom. I admit that I’m wrong, and the earth’s surface “carries” everything that lies with it, thanks to no friction at all ... But, honestly, I won’t know what else can cause the bodies to “not slip” and not remain in place, but to move with the surface, having the same angular velocity ... That is, to remain motionless relative to the surface ... After all, before contact with the seabed, the speeds were different ... And then they caught up))) .What "pulled" the station ????))))) ..
If the respected (for now) Oltaviro knows the CORRECT answer to this question, why didn’t he write and explain ??? And he only convicted me of ignorance of physics, especially of a school course ...
(If, then, while studying at the Physics and Mathematics Department, I not only took this course. But, something else does not come to mind!)))). Here it’s real and interesting for me ... Since a person is so confidently refuted, he must ask for the correct (in his opinion) answer. Let it be voiced already ... Interesting ...
Valery Ah, so you on Oltaviro offended, but I thought that the author of the article. Yeah, yes, I see, frankly, I also don’t completely agree with you in that message, is it not clear whether this was a joke? Also Ivan_Pokhmelev somehow hesitantly reacts, it’s real there, I'm sorry, I’m sorry, but for a joke
Yes, I somehow do not care about “likes” and “dislikes” ... I just don’t understand the logic of the “super bright sun”, who write “Learn materiel” or “Learn physics” with such aplomb, without explaining why they disagree so categorically that they consider the opponent a complete ignoramus ...
I do not pretend to be a know-it-all title, but I think that since a person has such ambitions, he EXACTLY KNOWS HOW CORRECTLY !!!
... Well, Oltaviro, how long will we wait for your explanations?
And the fact that the "MIR" has already fallen
Well, let's say, “MIR” did not fall, just our guys decided to jam the fish in the Pacific Ocean! smile
Valery Well, well, you have to wait a long time for "B", "C" and the rest of the alphabet, while the author answers you, he is fast and generous only on anti-likes. In, I have not had time to tell the message about the consequences of a possible ISS crash, as he almost broke his mouse with anti-face in my direction))
Ivan_Pokhmelev Yes, yes, I just wanted to say Sergey Orlov that would not write acceleration in m / s, then it’s better to keep silent, and critics can’t be avoided)) the same should be m / s squared g = 9.80665 m / s2 (like something wasn’t stuffed correctly in the message) well, I think everyone understood the deuce-small above should be. And the fact that the "WORLD" has already fallen does not mean that the "War" has begun))). When the ISS slows down for 15 minutes, it first flattens from the impact, then everything inside flies to the front wall and at that moment zero gravity also disappears, then it will slowly fall to Earth (lose altitude), but as soon as it enters the upper atmosphere, the next blows will appear (the atmosphere does not have a clear boundary and the air can be clumps), blow and shaking will also appear from entering the clouds (who flew know) and air with different temperatures
Quote: Sergey Orlov
because they will fall along with the station with an acceleration of 9.81 m / s.

We will not disturb the memory of the Mir station. Let us turn to the now-alive ISS, which rotates peacefully at an altitude of about 400 km. So, if the station starts to fall freely, the acceleration at the initial moment will be approximately 8.68 m / s • s. And, by the way, to your note: acceleration is measured not in meters per second, but in meters per second in a second.
It seems to have already written ... But something does not have my answer ...
Okay, I'll write again:
They said “A” - say “B” ... Already explain to us how much power a body lying on the Earth’s surface (even if it’s the seabed) moves with it, and does not stay in place at that time, when the earth turns ...
I believe that due to the force of friction ... But it's me who "went through physics" ...
I am waiting for the answer of the one who taught her.
Quote: Sergey Orlov
why do not you want to believe that at its core it is a gravitational engine.
What is this gravitational force directed parallel to the earth's surface?
Ivan_Pokhmelev Sorry if I offended, I did not have such a goal. I’m just a tongue-tied techie, I gave an example with space only because there is practically no friction there.And if other terms are applied, it will turn out that the ISS is in orbit due to balanced centrifugal force (Einstein's gravity) with the force vector directed in the opposite direction to the planet’s gravity vector. There is practically no friction, cosmic speed, the mass held in orbit is huge, so why were you confused by the author’s apparatus working on the same principles, why you do not want to believe that it’s basically a gravity engine.
New Standard Well, yes, I got excited with the Mir station, I'm a gamer and I'm not really interested in what's hanging on top. In general, for example, I had in mind a complete stop in orbit, although this is not possible.
So, at the crew’s expense, I think that they won’t smash their faces against the wall and will remain in zero gravity, because they will fall together with the station with an acceleration of 9.81 m / s. And so it will last until dense layers of the atmosphere, due to air resistance, the hull will fall more slowly and weightlessness will end. For the rest, we can say I agree. As it was correctly noted, zero gravity is not there, but the atmosphere is still slightly there, otherwise there would be no need for orbital adjustment. But this can be neglected. And I do not believe in antigravity.
Ivan_Pokhmelev and the ISS rises higher or unfolds when there is a threat of a large meteorite, if the meteorite was discovered late then partial evacuation from the station occurs, it happened 4 times
About
Quote: New Standard
micrometeorites and all space debris
braking the ISS - smiled from ear to ear. Firstly, all this rubbish and passing can be, and secondly, collisions with these objects are so rare that their effect on braking by orders of magnitude less atmospheric influence.
Ivan_Pokhmelev Well, the hedgehog is clear that there is absolutely no vacuum, just like there is absolutely no vacuum in interstellar space. But 80% of the Earth’s atmosphere is concentrated at an altitude of up to 10 km. The ISS at an altitude of 400 km is slowed down not only by individual molecules of nitrogen or oxygen, but also by micrometeorites and all space debris
delete (duplicate message)
Quote: New Standard
the vacuum around it (at height) does not give braking friction
Not at all. The ISS does not fly in a vacuum, but in a very thin layer of the atmosphere, which slows it down slowly. Therefore, from time to time it is required to turn on the engines to lift the orbit.
Sergey Orlov Well, I remotely understand your logic. Do you want to disperse the cations of mercury so that their inertial lift rate is comparable to the first cosmic velocity and then this whole installation can be raised like an artificial satellite?
The MIR station has already fallen to Earth; it has been flooded in the Pacific Ocean, and now there is the ISS, the International Space Station, in orbit. The station does not fall because it has a speed that copes with its fall, and the vacuum around it (at altitude) does not give braking friction (which can not be said about the air). The weightlessness of astronauts on the ISS is predetermined precisely by the "fall" of the station and not by antigravity. If you stop the station then: the astronauts will shandarah on the front wall of the station, then they will feel that there is no weightlessness, then the station will lose speed and begin to lose altitude in a parabola until it falls to Earth. Einstein's theory has not yet been proven! Einstein was given the Nobel Prize not for the theory of relativity, but for the formula for the photoelectric effect, and it was not he and Planck who discovered the photoelectric effect, and even before Planck, many more scientists worked on it. I myself can write such theories, only they will give me an anathema, because I do not have a Nobel Prize (the role of authority is important). Antigravity is when you put some kind of screen and after it the gravity decreases or disappears, is it weak to think up and do it?
What does it mean to stop correctly?
Stop the Earth, I will come down! xaxa
Station "Mir" revolves around the earth
And that's not true! According to the latest trends, the Earth is flat !!! xaxa
What kind of power? Some here obviously went through physics, and did not study at school.
Quote: Sergey Orlov
But you, in my opinion, either did not read the theory of relativity or, as noted above, in your statements you repeat the agent of world government
1. The simplest mechanical device does not have no attitude to the theory of relativity. You, Alexander, probably like beautiful words?
2. And where is it noticed that in my statements I repeat the agent of the world government? This cannot be: I myself am a world government! Ha! Ha! Ha! yahoo laugh1 ya_dobryi
if it is correct to stop this “World” so that none of the crew is injured at the same height as will happen to the crew for a period of the first 10 -15 minutes.

I think these fish are just shy who's where ... smiles
Why is Mir station and other satellites, even geostationary, orbiting the earth

Although the question is not addressed to me, I will answer:
Station "Mir" revolves around the earth under the action of friction. (Like all of us at this moment))). Although sea water acts as an “antifriction”, but this is not enough for the Mir station to slip along the seabed, rather than move with it ....
Quote: Sergey Orlov
Prove to us that you are with us
With whom is "with you"? But I’m not going to prove anything to anyone and I won’t.
Quote: Sergey Orlov
Why is Mir station and other satellites, even geostationary, orbiting the earth
First, the "World" does not revolve around 3eat. Secondly, those spacecraft that rotate do this because they have reached the first cosmic velocity.
Quote: Sergey Orlov
if it is correct to stop this “World” so that none of the crew is injured at the same height as will happen to the crew for a period of the first 10 -15 minutes.
What does it mean to stop correctly? And can you suffer at a different height? You can’t suffer only at the same height? If you mean by “stopping correctly” you mean “to leave the orbit”, then it is completely irrelevant what will happen to the crew that did not suffer in the original orbit, since it will inevitably die when the station leaves the orbit.
Not really. Independent from each other, controlled magnetic fields located along the perimeter of the trajectory will allow you to disperse and slow down loads in the right place and at the right time, even the same balls. But at high speeds comparable with the speed of light, a load of a different nature is needed, and here mercury has a high mass of the atomic nucleus, low temperature of evaporation and ionization. Plus, positively charged ions (cations - magnets) in a positively charged body will not wear it out. Sorry Valery in the fields of the answer intended for you, I immediately want to answer Pomelyev.
Ivan, you're right. This is a really typical inertoid and quite primitive. Tolchin also has an acceleration area and a braking area that are successfully utilized by adding agility to the trolley. In one of the videos, she confidently overcomes a rise of 10-15 degrees. But you, in my opinion, either did not read the theory of relativity or, as noted above, in your statements you repeat the agent of the world government and what is there brother reptiloid, etc., etc. Prove to us that you are with us, answer two questions. Why is the Mir station and other satellites, even geostationary, orbiting the earth and the second question is, if this Mir is correctly stopped, so that none of the crew is injured at the same height as will happen to the crew for the period of the first 10 -15 minutes .
Sergey Orlov But it’s not easier than mercury cations instead of a circular orbit with a displaced center of rotation to force them to jump simultaneously in a given direction (many times per second) at the command of a magnetic field (say carrots on ropes for a horse that pulls a cart), against earth gravity, interferes
Thanks to this picture, I finally understood how the structure presented by the author mover. This is a variant of the long-known inertcoid (inertioid). The cart will move on the floor and the raft on the water. All this has no gravity. no relations. The movement is due to the presence of friction both inside the "barrel organ" and, as in the vibration passage, between the trolley (raft) and the surface (water). The propulsion efficiency is low, it has no practical use, a funny toy is a demonstrator of a physical phenomenon. Type like a "Hottabych bird." )))
Is it really not clear ... Vacuum - on an armored train contains cations, not solution!
... P.S. Attic-man !!! Who will dissolve them? !!! ... They’re catho-o-ones !!!

As I understand from the figure and explanation, it is the use of cations that will make the centrifugal force such that it will depend only on the angular velocity, and its dependence will disappear completely from the distance of its application point from the center of rotation !!! smiles
Yes, here she is:


I do not care for any Masons! Ya - special agent Andryushko !!!
boss
It doesn’t matter - where, in a vacuum - so in a vacuum, but still: in which solution do you propose using these cations?
Secret probably not inserted in any way
Its contents are blocked by the world government! Big brother (reptilians) is watching you! smile
That schoshch there for such a picture, already interesting. Secret probably is not inserted in any way.
Picture (attempt No. 3)
https://yadi.sk/i/DhRFg75V9kUWIw ()
In a vacuum.
Picture for Valery

We advise you to read:

Hand it for the smartphone ...