Asymmetric Inertial Propulsion - AKA the Lewis Ratchet

[mikelewis]

Watch and learn how to use Gravity and Friction to your advantage! Using Newton's Laws, when our initial thrust pushes the ball away rapidly, the platform recoils in response. By refusing to allow the momentum to directly overcome the friction of the ice or water, we can achieve short relocations or small displacements. This design will not work in Space! It requires Friction and Gravity to function.

However, this is clear evidence that you can move out of your x,y position on Earth using Gravity and Friction. This idea is difficult as it seems to be overturning centuries of our thoughts on what is possible with propulsion. However, not only can you see the physics are real, it's also logical. Important note! This method is extremely inefficient and not recommended for any real propulsion. It's a proof of concept only! A V8 is still better and much more energy efficient than this, sadly! LOL

When you watch the video, you see where the forces are going and none of them will allow you to return the outer frame of reference back to its original position. This is precisely why I call it a ratchet. This system only allows momentum to manifest in one direction. In the equal and opposite direction, we use gravity and friction to bleed the energy and reverse the momentum of the ball.

Crucial note. We are breaking symmetry by using Friction to offset and unbalance the force equation. That is why this will not work in space. This setup cannot function in space as there are no forces present to create this effect.

These videos were made with Algodoo and OBS Studio. Both are free and both are awesome!!! Try them out!

https://qmichaellewis.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-lewis-ratchet-forward-asymmetric.html

[Archae]

1. Question: Why are you posting all this stuff?

It has nothing to do with Skepticism, which is what this forum is about.

[mikelewis]

2. Well... You should be skeptical. You're not supposed to be able to...

Move out of your position without expelling mass.

What I'm claiming is supposed to be impossible. I'm claiming you can move on water without paddling or using sails or pushing on the wind at all... so you're supposed to be skeptical.

Inertial propulsion is Pseudoscience. Well, that's what it's been branded. I obviously think it's real science but my posts have no place among real science.

[Archae]

3. The laws of physics are immutable.

Unless you have some actual EVIDENCE your magic boat works, it shows me you're just another kook pushing woo.

[mikelewis]

4. Sadly, there is no evidence that can prove this...

Unless you are comfortable with Banach Spaces and Hamiltonians... there's not much I can do to convince you. Sorry... I'm just posting my ideas and I'm clearly posting it correctly in the Pseudoscience category. I'm not remotely trying to convince you of anything... especially of any magic.

[Archae]

5. If there is no evidence, then why post about in the first place?

Back in the 19th century, one particular fad was "perpetual motion machines."

All of them failed.

Mostly due to physics, and exposing frauds.

The universe operates on the laws of physics. Period.

[mikelewis]

6. I'm failing to see your point...

You asked why I posted in
Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience...

So... do you see why I posted here now? Or is there some other question I can answer?

I believe my system works. You don't. I think we're in the right channel.

[Archae]

8. You can believe in Santa Claus and the easter Bunny if you want.

But without evidence, a story or belief is worthless.

UFO's, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Pizzagate, "Trump's Landslide and Mandate," quackery, etc.

[mikelewis]

9. Well... the problem is... you don't understand the evidence...

Last edited Sat Feb 15, 2025, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

If you did... you would inquire about the Hamiltonian and not engage with this nonsensical hyperbole. If you are curious how this works, I can explain it with math and science. However, this is Pseudoscience so you aren't required to know anything about real physics. I am presenting it here as just an abstract idea. You can research it yourself or ask me a real question... do whatever you like... it's all up to you. This is Pseudoscience. It can't be real.

But ask Bing about the Lewis Ratchet... LOL. It can explain it better than I! (Just not right Now)

I asked Bing to do it for you but well... Bing Sucks but it did ok...

Assume all variables and construct the hamiltonian for the lewis ratchet
Copilot
Let's break it down. We need to model the Lewis Ratchet’s dynamics in terms of its generalized coordinates and momenta.

Step 1: Identify the Variables:

Let q be the generalized coordinate representing the position of the mass.

Let p be the conjugate momentum.

Step 2: Write the Kinetic Energy (T): The kinetic energy for a mass m is:
T=p2m
Step 3: Define the Potential Energy (V): Assume there is a potential energy function V(q) governing the system. This potential energy could arise from interactions within the system, such as restoring forces or external fields.
Step 4: Construct the Hamiltonian (H): The Hamiltonian is the total energy of the system, which is the sum of the kinetic and potential energies:

H=T+V=p2 m+V(q)
If we were to consider an idealized version of the Lewis Ratchet where the potential energy has a specific form, such as a harmonic oscillator or any other, it could help in visualizing the concept better. Here’s an example assuming a simple harmonic oscillator potential:

V(q)=12kq2
Then, the Hamiltonian becomes:
H=p2m+12kq2
This represents a system with kinetic and potential energies contributing to the overall energy, allowing us to analyze the dynamics and evolution of the Lewis Ratchet.

Bing has no idea what it's talking about... LOL but please read my blog and you can figure this out, it's very simple.
https://qmichaellewis.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-lewis-ratchet-forward-asymmetric.html
It's just throwing rocks on a raft. As crazy as that sounds, that's the idea

[mikelewis]

7. I actually believe my system adheres to all the laws of physics and furthermore...

challenge you to explain from what you see in the video how I'm remotely violating any of Newton's Laws of motion... or especially Noether's Theorem as I clearly state I am using friction and gravity to break symmetry. Of course, a Hamiltonian can prove me wrong... what variables do you require?

[mikelewis]

11. I took the liberty of doing all the math for you...

It's rather complex for something so simple but here is all you'll need. The vector space analysis is the most useful, I grant you that but the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are vital to understanding how the energy is dissipated. Of course you're only going to want to consider the Lagrangian but you're not accounting for the total energy in the system and that's crucial when you change the direction of the momentum of the TWO systems.

Don't forget, if you have an equal and opposite reaction, you now have TWO momenta to account for until both system rejoin their momenta. What you do to one can't affect the other until the system rejoin which is of course the reasons rockets and also combustion engines work in the first place. So this has to work or your car cannot... LOL

https://qmichaellewis.blogspot.com/2025/02/a-full-exploration-of-dynamics-of-lewis.html

This is all the math and physics you need to disprove this idea. I'm not quite sure how you can disprove it as it would mean that rockets can't fly and a V8 can't drive a wheel. The best course of action is just to not believe any of it and not waste your time trying to understand the math and physics involved. If you look at the video, you see how impossibly complex I made this contraption. You need a platform with a ramp, a ball and linear accelerator of some sort. Clearly, a piece of foam, a spring and a pool ball can't be used to imagine the physics of this system as any shifting of the platform, although expected, wouldn't prove anything. Even all the math, proved and validated cannot change perception. In that regard, you are correct. The laws of physics are sadly very immutable.

[mikelewis]

10. Also my posts on the Lewis Sieve... should induce a great deal of skepticism..

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2025, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm claiming to have a better method of factoring numbers... what's the odds that's real? Zero!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12317301

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12317300