No EM energy asymmetry alone can even speak to the issue of CoM - apples to oranges. CoM is not energy-dependent - it doesn't matter how much energy we throw at it, nor its provenance.
The time-dependent variable you propose here is just a causality violation - photons by definition propagate at C, ie. either the fields are interacting, and hence powering on the second electro-magnet presents as a load upon the first one's energy supply via Lenz's law and thus complying with Newton's 3rd, or else there is never any time for a force to be in effect between them, and so no mechanical acceleration. Likewise, if a magnetic sample is being propelled by an applied field, then either it is accelerating and so applying back-EMF, or else we're invoking an unsupported N3 violation again. You CAN leverage time-dependent mechanical energy asymmetries via the processes i've described, however. On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, there might be the odd exception. > > I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't > practical. Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos > that explains the propulsive effects... But I doubt it. > > Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work > without switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets > to affect Inertial mass positively or negatively) this is if you have an > electromagnet establish a field, a large field > > And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is > attracted or repelled. > > Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect > the first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet. > > So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has > experienced no forces. > > As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, > or both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves > deeper into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, > so one finds the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other > finds it decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the > other magnet. > > By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and > therefore the CoE... > > And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, > near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would > consider a blow. > > This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that > momentum in the opposite direction. > > I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for > the photon to be coming from. > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: >> >> . . . >> The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its >> ostensible purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc. >> >> If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like >> bearings, springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries. >> >> . . . you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is. >> >> Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics >> mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at. >> >> Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the >> thing has its entire guts out. You can see the values of everything, in >> every field. Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas >> that can be manually checked by anyone. So you can independently calculate >> the input and output work integrals, from their respective dependent >> variables, which are also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself >> that everything is being presented accurately. You can immediately >> replicate the results on the back of an envelope, from first principles. >> >> Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on >> conservation of energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity". If >> they do seem to produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by >> checking "the input and output work integrals" you can pin down which >> formula you have entered incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which >> excess energy appears (or disappears). It is only when you get a perfect >> energy balance throughout (as well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is >> finally working. >> >> On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: >> >> . . . i've already done it. . . No New physics. >> >> Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it. You >> have simply made a mistake. I suggest you find a friend who is good at >> physics to check your equations for the term(s) which you must have >> neglected or included in error. Even if the person does not understand >> what you tell them, you can often discover the mistake yourself while >> trying to explain it to someone else at a detailed enough level. >> >> If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler >> did), then you could be right and you could have made an amazing >> (re)discovery that would require all the basic physics text books to need >> correcting with the NEW PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated. >> But if it is just maths and simulation applied to standard known physics, >> then everybody who knows this stuff KNOWS that you must have made a >> mistake. . . . Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. >> >> Consider an illustration that might help. Supposing you started with a >> litre of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very >> complicated transformation processes. So you might boil it to a vapour, >> condense it in a fractional distillation column, run fractions through >> filters of various sorts, freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, >> ad nauseum. In the end, no matter what you did to it, you will not have >> managed to increase or decrease the number of molecules of water through >> any of these processes. The amount of water at the end would be just the >> same as what you started with - and almost all well educated people would >> refuse to believe otherwise. Without NEW CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an >> overunity production of water molecules. >> >> Well the same is true of energy. You can transform it in far more ways >> than you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of >> joules (just as the number of molecules) remains constant. Physicists know >> this and CANNOT believe otherwise. Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS >> to explain how the extra joules came to appear within the system, it is >> simply not possible to believe. All the physics equations that we have are >> based on the conservation of energy because we have never had a system in >> captivity to study that breaks this law. >> > >