🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 6, 2:37 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...>  You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
> > the earth.
>
> ...
>
> This particular flywheel (that we discuss here) is already tied up to
> the kind of substance which the Concept of Dipolar Gravity calls
> "counter-matter" (for details see the totaliztic web page named
> "dipolar_gravity.htm"). Thus the flywheel which has the axis of
> rotation alligned appropriately (means maintains it parallel to the
> axis of rotation of the Earth), is working in a different set of
> coordinates than the Earth does. This is why such a flywheel remains
> motionless, while the Earth rotates in its daily cycle. This is also
> why such a flywheel looks as if it rotates in relation to the Earth.
> After all, we already know the above behaviour from the action of the
> Coriolis effect, as this behaviour represents the mechanism which
> propells the the Coriolis effect.
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak


Hi
 What kind of junk are you reading ( dipolar_gravity.htm ).
 I will restate the problem.

 First, force without motion is not power.

 Second, a force applied to tha axis of an otherwise free flywheel
   will case a perpendicular motion ( not power, vectors are at 90
 degrees ). This means your machine will need to restrict the motion
 of the flywheel to some angle like 45 degrees between the force and
 free motion. At this angle, over time, the flywheel will precess
until
 it is exactly aligned with the polar axis.

 Third, at this time, the rotation of the earth will no longer effect
the flywheel.
 End of game.

 Fourth, there has been nothing ever shown to prove that conservation
of momentum
has ever, ever been violated. You need to work with reality. Anyone
can
publish a bunch of junk science on the web.

 Fifth, Coriolis effect has been completely described with Newtonian
mechanics
and does not in any way shape or form violate the laws of conservation
of
momentum. It doesn't need any special outside junk like
dipolar_gravity
to understand it. Why pull this junk in when it is completely
predicable with
known science. Coriolis is simple inertia. Always was and always will
be.
I believe the statement, " an object in motion tends to stay in
motion" is
enough to show why we have the Coriolis effect. It also explains
Foucault's
pendulum.

 These have been explained to you several times and all you can use to
justify that you are right is some junk science that has nothing to do
with
real observed effects. This is why I asked you to run some experiments
with simple setups that don't require things like the entire earth.
You can
easily create a rotation frame of reference with simple junk
parts( swivel
chair ).
 You can easily create a nice flywheel from an old bicycle wheel. You
can then easily
prove to yourself that it won't work. You don't have to depend on
anything
from junk web pages. You can use real world experiments!
 I have told you why it won't work and I've proposed experiments you
can
run yourself to show you why it doesn't work. I've run similar
experiments
many years ago in science class so I know how they work.
 I can see that you really want this to work but I can only show you
how
to think, I can't make you actually think. The laws of motion and
inertia
haven't changed since man has been looking at things. If someone
tells you different, they are either liars or mistaken( most seem to
be liars ).
Dwight