I read on another forum that if Newton's third law was violated and the forces were not equal, a rocket could burn little fuel and yet have a large acceleration because the action is weak and the reaction is strong. If the opposite happened, you would have to generate a lot of fuel to get a little push.

I am asking, if Newton's third law were not equal in magnitude when two objects of unequal mass collide, how would the unequal forces of the two objects deal with the unequal masses?

Also, how would forces unequal in magnitude affect running, pushing, lifting, throwing, jumping, stretching, squeezing and breaking things?

...I am asking, if Newton's third law were not equal in magnitude when two objects of unequal mass collide, how would the unequal forces of the two objects deal with the unequal masses?
Also, how would forces unequal in magnitude affect running, pushing, lifting, throwing, jumping, stretching, squeezing and breaking things?Might be nice. Then you really could lift your self by pulling on your boot straps.

But while we are speculating about results of "false facts," tell me what color elephant egg is most likely to survive in the wild?

Iridescent purple. As they are rather large, it has been shown that the solar reflections from the highly reflective purple surface deters all but the most determined predator. At night the distorted purple reflections of stars from the eggs surface confuse predators into thinking that a swarm of deadly phosphorescent wasps are swarming. A similar effect is observed with other African egg laying mammals.

Welcome to SciForums sciencerocks!

You would have to decide what rule your unbalanced action-reaction pairs followed before you could determine how it would affect all of those things. Luckily there are plenty of people on this forum who can help you invent theories.

-Dale

Take a small air jet.. and blast it into a powerful vacuum...

does the vacuum negate any of the drag it would normally apply against the thrust of the air jet??

it would depend on the quality of your vacuum system.

but no one knows how to build one that can do it.

if you do.. you could build nuclear power chemical recycling rocket systems and use it to travel the stars.

-MT

MT,


...does the vacuum negate any of the drag it would normally apply against the thrust of the air jet??

Now, this comes across as complete nonsense. Please clarify.

normally the cone shaped collector we might use to capture the escaped gas from the ROCKET would... due to impact of the particles agaisnt said cone.. negate the thrust of our little rocket...

a rocket firing into a big collection cone goes nowhere..

but if we have instead a large powerful vacuum collection system.. to obsorb the blow.. then it might be possible to negate the drag which would normally cancel all forward thrust...

again it would depend in some unique design in the vacuum system.. specifically to reduce said drag effect by many various means....

i do not have the solution... only the general idea.

its solution would allow us to literally recycle our fuel...... but it would greatly reduce thrust... but in space thats ok.

-MT

MT,

Collector cone??? Are you referring to the bell? The bell is the reason that rockets fly at all. The escaping gas is confined and directed (by the bell) backward in a way to gain the most thrust from the energy of the expanding gas.

NO.. im talking about putting a very large cone... directed to colecct the emitted gas from the rocket... the rocket being small in comparison.

And putting our unique vacuum system within... for the recollection of the gas.
-MT

Oy veh.

Oy veh.

SL,
If the expanding gas were collected from an angle perpendicular to the otherwise downward thrust of the gasses, could not these gasses be used again? I think this is what the designer of the resusable gasses was getting at. Collecting the gasses by stopping their sidways motion (after freely expanding), does not negate the original downward thrust. But then if the particles collected were from a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen misture, it would seem that the only usable part of the collected water(?) would in reheating the vapors and using the expended vapor as a steam driven, 'second phase booster'.
Geistkiesel

OR.. USING NUCLEAR POWER... we could generate electricity to electrolysis the water into hydroge and oxygen again... and again.. and again...

or water and steam works good too.... just not as much kick.

or compressed air...

doesnt matter...

if the collection cone can be made to negate just a small % of the normally occurring drag.. then that small % would be usable force.

-MT

Howdy geist,



SL,
If the expanding gas were collected from an angle perpendicular to the otherwise downward thrust of the gasses, could not these gasses be used again? I think this is what the designer of the resusable gasses was getting at. Collecting the gasses by stopping their sidways motion (after freely expanding), does not negate the original downward thrust. But then if the particles collected were from a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen misture, it would seem that the only usable part of the collected water(?) would in reheating the vapors and using the expended vapor as a steam driven, 'second phase booster'.
Geistkiesel

First of all, the expanding gas always has a parallel and perpendicular component otherwise the rocket wouldn't move to begin with. A 100% efficient rocket (from the point of view of thrust vectors of the propellant particles) expels propellant along the axis of thrust only. For example, a gun is a 100% efficient rocket, in that there is no force component of the propellant (the bullet) that is not directed along the axis of the rocket (gun barrel).

If you were to attach a "collection bucket" that trailed behind the "gun" rocket (and is, of course moving with the rocket) and attempted to "catch" the bullet, the rearward momentum of the bullet woould completely negate the forward momentum imparted to the rocket. After all, the collector is now part of the rocket, so you haven't really expelled any propellant, have you?

Ok, so with a real rocket (<< 100% thrust-efficient), in which some of the propellant momentum vector is sideways (say 10% is sideways, ad 90% is along the axis, this is a 90% thrust-efficient rocket), you want to collect particles that impact a cone attached to the rocket. You stop the sideways momentum vector which is distributed radially and evenly so that there is no net sideways motion of the rocket/cone combination. But the axial momentum vector is still there and must be transferred to the cone somehow in order to stop it. This of course, completely negates the forward momentum imparted to the rocket/cone combination.

From outside the rocket/cone combination, it is a closed system. There can be no net thrust in a closed system. You don't even have to analyze it the way I just did. The fact that it is obviously a closed system is a dead givaway that no net thrust can be produced.

of course it doesnt work.... hence the need for the powerful vacuum system of unique design to reduce said drag....

i didnt say it would work... or atleast no one knows how...

but if we found a way... interplanetary travel would be made easy....

-MT

Sorry about this, but I cannot visualize these violations because I have a hard time doing so. So can anyone please tell me how forces that are unequal in magnitude affect running, pushing, lifting, pulling, throwing, jumping, stretching, squeezing and breaking things?

ITS called pressure.

Sorry about this, but I cannot visualize these violations because I have a hard time doing so. So can anyone please tell me how forces that are unequal in magnitude affect running, pushing, lifting, pulling, throwing, jumping, stretching, squeezing and breaking things?

What violations? No violations of action-reaction have ever been observed. Hence we call them 'natural laws'.

Anytime the forces acting on an object (your foot say) are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, there will be no motion, but there may be compression or stretching. When the forces on the object become unequal, there will be a tendency for the object to move, if able, in the direction of the larger force. If the object it constrained somehow, it may experience compression, stretching or breaking.

10 ---->O<---- 10 : No motion.

20 ---------->O<---- 10 results in: 10 ---->O

Is this what you are interested in?

superluminal,


There can be no net thrust in a closed system.

A few years ago, I posted my idea for an electrostaic pulse engine that would be a closed system, but would provide thrust (at least I think). Here is the thread if your interested:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5224

I think conservation of momentum forbids it in general. To shove yourself in some direction, somewhere, somehow, something else has to be shoved the opposite direction.

Oh wait. That's Newton's 3rd Law. *shakes head* Sorry. Tired.

THAT is a fascinating idea... idea... idea.. i like ideas...

aNOTHER one... SIMPLER TO IMAGINE.... harder to build.

set up our ship to generate a massive 1 billion volt charge at one end...

and develope the means to control the direction and action of said positive field..

and then... all you need to do is connect it to a distant star or dwarf or black hole...

which is very large.. and makes a good ground for our field.

and thats it... the potential will cause a pull... on the object we connect to.

and even if electrons come flying off of it.. the net result will be a force we can use.

its simply a matter of generating the field.. and controlling its connection.

-MT

superluminal,



A few years ago, I posted my idea for an electrostaic pulse engine that would be a closed system, but would provide thrust (at least I think). Here is the thread if your interested:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5224

Unfortunately, poor tired Zephyr is right. There's no hope for a reactionless propulsion system.

THAT is a fascinating idea... idea... idea.. i like ideas...

aNOTHER one... SIMPLER TO IMAGINE.... harder to build.

set up our ship to generate a massive 1 billion volt charge at one end...

and develope the means to control the direction and action of said positive field..

and then... all you need to do is connect it to a distant star or dwarf or black hole...

which is very large.. and makes a good ground for our field.

and thats it... the potential will cause a pull... on the object we connect to.

and even if electrons come flying off of it.. the net result will be a force we can use.

its simply a matter of generating the field.. and controlling its connection.

-MT

Of course! It's so simple! Why didn't I think of it (I know MT, I'm a moron). All ya gotta do is connect the frammastat to the electro-widgy and connect it to a star! It's simply a matter of transhyperelectrodynamicsubdimensional thrusting! Duh!

Of course! It's so simple! Why didn't I think of it (I know MT, I'm a moron). All ya gotta do is connect the frammastat to the electro-widgy and connect it to a star! It's simply a matter of transhyperelectrodynamicsubdimensional thrusting! Duh!

ha.. yeah.. exactly.. it should be simple... just not do-able... not any time soon.
-MT

I read on another forum that if Newton's third law was violated and the forces were not equal, a rocket could burn little fuel and yet have a large acceleration because the action is weak and the reaction is strong. If the opposite happened, you would have to generate a lot of fuel to get a little push.

I am asking, if Newton's third law were not equal in magnitude when two objects of unequal mass collide, how would the unequal forces of the two objects deal with the unequal masses?

Also, how would forces unequal in magnitude affect running, pushing, lifting, throwing, jumping, stretching, squeezing and breaking things?

To add:-

As such, how following thoughts/laws can be considered valid:-

"Allen's paradoxic l. whereas in normal individuals the more sugar is given the more is utilized, the reverse is true in diabetics.

Arndt's l. , Arndt-Schulz l. weak stimuli increase physiologic activity, moderate stimuli inhibit activity, and very strong stimuli abolish activity. See also hormesis

hormesis (hor·me·sis) (hor-me“sis) [Gr. hormēsis rapid motion] the stimulating or beneficial effect of small doses of a toxic substance that at higher doses has an inhibitory or adverse effect. "

A person abusing once or slapping one but gets three abuses or three slappings in return/reaction.

Propagating of energy. ;)

superluminal,


Unfortunately, poor tired Zephyr is right. There's no hope for a reactionless propulsion system.

There's no hope for a reactionless mass propulsion system because mass always has inertia, and therefore an action/reaction.

This doesn't apply to electric and magnetic reactionless propulsion systems since those fields can be switched on and off. With the correct timing, you can create an action without a reaction.

There are several other ways, other than Prosoothus' way, known to many people for many decades and centuries, to obtain an action without a reaction.

I will make no further comment here on the subject or on any reaction to my posting action.

Oh brother.

Hi Prosoothus, I'm afraid reactionless drives do not exist. They are forbidden by basic physical laws which are known to hold with very high precision. I'm sure you will tell me that I'm wrong, but I though I would try anyway.

Physics Monkey,


Hi Prosoothus, I'm afraid reactionless drives do not exist.

I agree with you. But that doesn't mean that they can't exist. Check out this idea that I had a few years ago (when my username was Joeblow93132):

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5224

How it works is that you have two metal plates, connected to each other, seperated by a distance. Plate 1 is quickly charged, while plate 2 remains neutral. When the electric field from plate 1 reaches the midpoint between plates 1 and 2, plate 1 is switched off. When the front of the electric field from plate 1 reaches plate 2, plate 2 is charged. At this point, plate 2 is pushing against the electric field that originated from plate 1, and the field is pushing against plate 2. There is no force on plate 1 because the electric field is no longer "connected" to plate 1. Finally, plate 2 is switched off when the back of the electric field hits it, and the whole process is repeated over and over again.

This technique should result in an action force on plate 2, without a reaction force on plate 1. Since both plates are connected, this should push both of them in the direction of plate 2. I can't say with certainty that this device would work because I'm not sure exactly how a "dettached" electric field would react with an electric field that is attached to a metal plate.

Prosoothus,

It is certainly true that I cannot with any absolute certainty tell you that reactionless drives cannot exist. Such drives would however violate very basic physical laws which are known to hold to very high precision. What I can tell you is that any drive based on classical electromagnetism and classical mechanics will not be reactionless. It is possible to prove starting with the most general equations (which have themselves been verified to high precision) that any interacting electro-mechanical system conserves momentum. It is not therefore a matter of cleverness, as ANY physically realizable electro-mechanical system will conserve momentum. Of course, it is possible that one could produce an engine based on emitting electromagnetic radiation, but such a device is not a reactionless drive (though it might appear to be based on mechanical observations only). I would emphasize that I am not trying to disparage your idea, such thinking can help elucidate the structure of theory, but I am trying to emphasize why it cannot work based on very general considerations which find their foundation in experiment.

Physics Monkey,


It is not therefore a matter of cleverness, as ANY physically realizable electro-mechanical system will conserve momentum.

The conservation of momentum only applies to systems that use physical properties that do not change (inertial mass for example). Let me try to explain:

First, lets assume that you have a device that is floating in outer space, and you want to make it go in one direction without expelling any matter (or energy) out of the device. For the sake of arguement, let's say that in the inside of the device you have a gun on one side, and a target on the other. As soon as you fire the gun, the whole device will quickly move in one direction, but when the bullet hits the target, the device will then quickly move in the opposite direction. Since the force resulting from the acceleration of the bullet in the gun is equal to the force resulting from the deceleration of the bullet at the target, the two opposite forces neutralize each other resulting in no net force on the entire device. Conservation of momentum at work, right? Yes, but only because the inertial mass of the bullet is constant. For example, if you can switch the inertial mass of the bullet on and off at will, you could create a reactionless drive. Unfortunately, no one has yet found a way to switch inertial mass on and off. :p

Now, let's say that you have the same device as above, but you replace the gun that shoots bullets with a gun that generates an electric field, and you replace the target with an electric plate that can be charged and discharged quickly. When the gun fires, it produces a short burst of an electric field (let's call it an electric bullet) that starts heading towards the target at the speed of light. Unlike the gun that shoots regular bullets, the gun that shoots electric bullets does not recoil when it creates the electric field so there is no force on the side of the device where the gun is positioned. When the electric bullet reaches the target you can do two things: you can leave the target uncharged or you can quickly charge it. If you leave the target uncharged, the electric bullet will pass right through it without creating a force on the target. If, however, you quickly charge the target as the electric bullet hits it, the electric field of the target will push against the electric bullet, and the electric bullet will push back against the target. What you are doing in essence is switching on or off the "inertia" of the electric bullet by charging or discharging the target. Since the "inertia" of the electric bullet can be switched on or off, a reactionless drive using electric bullets would be possible, where it wouldn't using regular bullets for the reasons you gave in your post.

Of course, the tricky part is making sure that the electric bullet is short enough so that when it is interacting with the target, it is not interacting with the gun at the same time causing the forces to neutralize each other. This is done by making sure that the gun is off when the electric bullet hits the target.

By Prosoothus:

"Unlike the gun that shoots regular bullets, the gun that shoots electric bullets does not recoil when it creates the electric field so there is no force on the side of the device where the gun is positioned."
================================================== ============

Why do you think this? Ion drives, such as used on Deep Space One, are electric engines that use the recoil of accelerating ions to produce acceleration.

2inquisitive,


Why do you think this? Ion drives, such as used on Deep Space One, are electric engines that use the recoil of accelerating ions to produce acceleration.

Because the ions are being pushed, and they have inertial mass so there is an opposite reaction. In the example I described above only the electric field is moving, and it doesn't have inertial mass.

Inertial mass is not necessary for there to be momentum, or a reaction. Light sails work by the transfer of momentum from photons. Even when a photon is emitted from an electron, there is a recoil imparted to the electron/atom.

2inquisitive,


Even when a photon is emitted from an electron, there is a recoil imparted to the electron/atom.

I know that photons have momentum, but I don't think that the particles that make up electric fields do. And even if they did, since the electric field is emitted in all directions equally from a charged object, there still wouldn't be a recoil.

What kind of particles make up your 'electric field'?

2inquisitive,


What kind of particles make up your 'electric field'?

I have no idea. And it appears that no one else does either. :bugeye:

When the gun fires, it produces a short burst of an electric field (let's call it an electric bullet) that starts heading towards the target at the speed of light. Unlike the gun that shoots regular bullets, the gun that shoots electric bullets does not recoil when it creates the electric field so there is no force on the side of the device where the gun is positioned.
Why do you think that the electric field doesn't push on the gun?

You could also think of your gun as an electromagnetic radiation emitter (which it is). Do you think that electromagnetic radiation has no momentum?


I have no idea. And it appears that no one else does either. :bugeye:
Have you asked?
Think about it.
What is the carrier particle for the electric force?

The changing electric field generated by your gun is radiated to the target as electromagnetic radiation, right?
What quanta (particles) make up electromagnetic radiation?

Think linear electromagnetic accelerator. Moving fields, lots of action-reaction. Works for japanese maglevs.

Pete,


Why do you think that the electric field doesn't push on the gun?

You could also think of your gun as an electromagnetic radiation emitter (which it is). Do you think that electromagnetic radiation has no momentum?

Electric fields and electromagnetic radiation are not the same thing. Electromagnetic radiation consists of photons, that behave like waves and particles at the same time, which have oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The momentum of a photon is linked to its energy, which is dependent on its frequency. So a photon with a frequency of 0 has no energy, and therefore no momentum.

Since a static electric field doesn't oscillate, it's likely that it doesn't have momentum, or inertia, even if it is composed of photons (which I'm not sure it is). Also, if a static electric field does have momentum, wouldn't charged particles be in a continuous process of losing energy?


Have you asked? Think about it. What is the carrier particle for the electric force?

Like I said before, I don't know.


The changing electric field generated by your gun is radiated to the target as electromagnetic radiation, right? What quanta (particles) make up electromagnetic radiation?

The gun is supposed to create an electric field. As the electric field changes strength it creates a magnetic field, which as a result produces a pulse of electromagnetic radiation that you can call photons. But the electromagnetic radiation the gun produces is an unwanted side effect of the static electric field that I must switch on and off to make the device work.

You seem to think that both electromagnetic waves and static electric fields consist of photons. Do you believe that static magnetic fields also consist of photons? How do you explain the attraction of two oppositely charged particles using only photons?

superluminal,


Think linear electromagnetic accelerator. Moving fields, lots of action-reaction. Works for japanese maglevs.

When an charged object pushes a charged particle, the charged particle pushes the charged object back through the electric field that connects them. So it's as you said, action/reaction.

The goal is to use short pulses of electric field from one object to push another object, without the second object being able to push back.

Hi Prosoothus,
You can't have a changing electric field without electromagnetic radiation. In fact, that's precisely how the change in the field is propogated.


Since a static electric field doesn't oscillate, it's likely that it doesn't have momentum, or inertia, even if it is composed of photons (which I'm not sure it is). Also, if a static electric field does have momentum, wouldn't charged particles be in a continuous process of losing energy?
Right. But you don't have a static field, do you? "A short burst of an electric field" is definitely not a static field... it turns on, it turns off.


Like I said before...
The photon is the carrier particle for the electric force.




But the electromagnetic radiation the gun produces is an unwanted side effect of the static electric field that I must switch on and off to make the device work.
Unwanted or not, the radiation is real... and it will stop your device from working.


You seem to think that both electromagnetic waves and static electric fields consist of photons. Do you believe that static magnetic fields also consist of photons? How do you explain the attraction of two oppositely charged particles using only photons?
I don't know enough quantum theory to hold a belief. I think that the quantum description of static electric and magnetic fields relies on the exchange of virtual photons, but I know nothing more than that.

Prosoothus,

The electromagnetic field is a single entity which is best described by a quantum field in the context of the Standard Model. The classical electric and magnetic fields you observe, including static electric fields and electromagnetic radiation, are states of the quantum electromagnetic field that consist of a large and indeterminate number of photons. It makes no sense to talk about the electric or magnetic field of a single photon, and in fact one can prove that a single photon represents a state with no average electric or magnetic field. However, it is actually not a difficult task to extract Coulomb's law for static electric systems from the quantum description, so photons are certainly an appropriate way to talk about electric fields. Nevertheless, what is actually meant by a photon is a rather complicated matter, and the concept is very often misused.

Along these same lines, let me emphasize again that the "vanishing of inertia" and so forth you have talked about is forbidden at the most basic level. It really is not a matter of cleverness. Let me be totally clear here: the so called Standard Model describes every experiment that has ever been done. There are no known observations that contradict the theory, and many of the theory's predictions have been verified to a shocking degree of precision. In so far as your device is composed of matter and forces that are described by the Standard Model, it cannot violate conservation of momentum.

Physics Monkey:

When the biggest Generals in the whole Army get together and talk about their favorite and worst and all in between, overland invasions, past, present, and future, they inevitably get around to to speaking of "going one bridge too far". Of course, we can "go one bridge too far" when we gush in our deification of Quantum Theory, not just when we reiterate failed military strategy.

After Feynman and the Gang Of Three won the Nobel for Renormalization Theory, he often and plainly stated that that they won the Prize for nothing more than plain fraud. Prior to Renormalization, Quantum Physics always produced annoying infinities instead of real and useful numbers as solutions to certain equations and calculations. Quantum Physics was basically severely flawed and remains so. The basic theory and equations have never changed, only, now the renormalization process is added to the calculations in a manner notoriously similar to Enron "book-cooking". The Gang Of Three worked out a way to "cook the books" on the results of the equations, not a way to actually change the equations.

I greatly admire QP for a number of reasons, and must be considered its friend and not its foe. But, gushingly talk of its perfection like a schoolgirl infatuatedly praising the perfection of the most recent lover? I think not.

One photon not having a field, according to the perfect theory and math of QP? Well, the math and theory MUST be perfect, right?

Or maybe we have literarily gone TWO bridges too far.

CANGAS,

I have not used the words the "perfection" and "deification", only you have done that. I have not said the Standard Model is perfect, I have not said the Standard Model is the end of the story, and I have been careful to indicate that the Standard Model is what it is because it describes reality. Nevertheless, the Standard Model does describe every experiment that has ever been done! Such an accomplishment is worthy of the tiniest bit of praise don't you think?

As for the role and nature of renormalization, we have learned quite a bit since Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, and others first introduced the formalism. To be perfectly honest, you have an archaic view on the matter which seems to stem from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong, as I would be delighted to discuss the matter in an intelligent way with you. Since renormalization is essentially always necessary in field theory, the question really is why do the field theories that describe our world contain divergences. We know the answer to this question, it is simply because we lack knowledge of the physics at extremely short distance scales. Renormalization is a perfectly reasonable program whereby we acknowledge this ignorance and separate the low energy physics from the unknown high energy physics.

As for the field of the photon, it seems again clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Do you actually know what a photon represents in the theory? It is a simple matter to show that a one photon state has no average electric field, a fact which is related to the well known concept of number-phase uncertainty.

Prosoothus:

Quantum Mechanics has a theory for obtaining not only electrostatic repulsion, which is easy to visualize, but also electrostatic attraction by the exchange of virtual photons. It ( and indeed both ) are confusingly complicated and convoluted, but, while reading them, they make sense. Afterward, only someone like PM can claim to remember them clearly enough to still understand them.

pHYSICS mUNKEE:

We have enjoyed your voluminous claims that Quantum Physics has been proved to a wonderfully high degree of precision.

Prior to the Gang Of Three having fabricated the renormalization scam, the basic equations, pertinent to said scam, always gave infinity as the solution to the equations. After the scam was awarded the Nobel, and was installed as standard operating procedure, real numbers have usually been obtained, to the relief of many scientists.

Bearing in mind that the renormalization is an ad hoak fix, we should, if we wish to be honest, only speak of pre-fix quantum physics when we wish to speak of its accuracy.

So, when we compare infinity to any real number, do we get a "high degree of precision"? What is any real number divided by infinity? What degree of precision is that?

You are invited to prove that your side of the issue is correct, as if someone who cannot keep it straight in their mind whether they are supposed to be talking about an electron or a photon could do so.

CANGAS,

Why do you attack a well tested method of calculation when you don't even know what it is? It seems that you have never actually done any renormalization, and it further seems that you don't have the slightest idea what it is beyond your tedious and baseless claim that it represents some kind of scam. The Standard Model does give unambiguous predictions that have been verified to very high precision by experiment, and renormalization is a well understood component of the theory. Physicists certainly didn't just make up all those numbers . My impression is that you are either joking or so ignorant on the subject that further discussion is meaningless, so I will say no more here.

Physics Monkee:

I am thoroughly familiar with renormalization, not only in theory but in practice.

For some time now I have recognized you as a poser who knows how to appear to have much more knowledge and understanding than is actually the case. You are presently proving this, and doing nothing to redeem yourself.

Perhaps you will quit wasting time and stalling and will inform us, since you have had ample time to Google it, the specific serious problem suffered by Quantum Physics, still extant, solved by the confessed ad hoak and fraudulent math which the Gang Of Three added onto insufficient QP math.

In your general inability to understand or properly address issues, you have totally failed to comprehend my main issue with you. To spoon feed it to you, I assessed you to have unfairly condemned the Prosoothus design on no basis other than an unbelievably pompous attitude that you claimed was rooted in the highly accurate precision of a theory which is widely acknowledged to have had, and to still have, extremely serious math shortcomings.

The Prosoothus design is so simple and plainly explained that an honest critic could have taken a leisurely half hour and gone through the simple math needed to analyze it and render an honest verdict. Yet you intellectually dishonestly assailed it on no basis of physics or math but on a knee jerk reaction.

And your knee jerk reaction is totally flawed! His design is no more blasphemous to the Holy Standard Model than a photon rocket, which has been a part of normal physics thought for many decades now. The ancient Poynting Vector showed us that electromagnetic fields contain and transfer momentum. There is nothing wrong with the concept that an action involving mass can be balanced by a reaction involving an electromagnetic field instead of mass.

You have been totally scientifically unfair toward the said scientific proposal. And you have been totally scientifically dishonest in your claim of precision for a theory which is held together by mathematical band aids.