The other example I can think of is based on light pressure. The same principal as a radiometer. There seems to be a popular misconception as to what causes the radiometer to spin, expasion due to heating.
If a light source has a mirror at one side and a black absorber at the other this will cause a movement. The mirror reflects the light with almost no acceleration and the black absorber does experiance an acceleration. Lots of power to get any useful effect. No thowing away of reaction mass.
I just don't understand why the old method of reaction mass rockets is still being used. There are several ways of giving an object velocity without reaction mass, as some term "inertia drives". They DO exist so why are they ignored by mainstream science? Google for yourself. The simplist method is a tube, bouncing a mass off a spring and letting it go clunk at the other end. Energy is applied to accelerate the mass for both directions. The difference in directional energy is obtained from the fact that when the mass goes klunk energy is lost through deformation etc. You don't have to take my word for it, use your brain, analyse the forces. Then you can wonder why we still use reaction mass rockets.
The Sloan Great Wall is termed a large structure and shouldn't exist if you want to believe in the big bang. Oh? you didn't know? the balance of proof suggests the big bang is incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
The mirror reflects and no (minimum, not perfect ) it is the absorbtion of the photon that reacts. Yes it is counterintuative.
The other example I can think of is based on light pressure. The same principal as a radiometer. There seems to be a popular misconception as to what causes the radiometer to spin, expasion due to heating. If a light source has a mirror at one side and a black absorber at the other this will cause a movement. The mirror reflects the light with almost no acceleration and the black absorber does experiance an acceleration. Lots of power to get any useful effect. No thowing away of reaction mass.
I just don't understand why the old method of reaction mass rockets is still being used. There are several ways of giving an object velocity without reaction mass, as some term "inertia drives". They DO exist so why are they ignored by mainstream science? Google for yourself. The simplist method is a tube, bouncing a mass off a spring and letting it go clunk at the other end. Energy is applied to accelerate the mass for both directions. The difference in directional energy is obtained from the fact that when the mass goes klunk energy is lost through deformation etc. You don't have to take my word for it, use your brain, analyse the forces. Then you can wonder why we still use reaction mass rockets.
The Sloan Great Wall is termed a large structure and shouldn't exist if you want to believe in the big bang. Oh? you didn't know? the balance of proof suggests the big bang is incorrect.