Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2012
Topology of the Change
From the Free Torque Generator to the fundaments of the Nonlinear Dynamics
Independent Researcher, 4 – “Dobrudja”street, 9168 Ezerovo, Varna region, Bulgaria
Abstract Even if well supported by theoretical and experimental data each of the many claims for extraordinary phenomenon is unacceptable for the united by the Conservation Laws Physics hence it is an isolated in-piece work. In the united Physics breakthrough, if possible should exist in its all areas. The only “legal” way to explain possible violation of Conservation Laws is by following the statement that they do not act in nonlinear systems and no inertia frame of reference. What nonlinearity is? The First Newtonian Law indicates the inherent two qualities of mass: to conserve its linear velocity and direction. But the Second and Third Newtonian Laws and all Classical Physics explore the effects of the changed linear velocity only forming the Linear Concept like the only possible one. The inertial effects of the changed direction of motion are pointed like fictive ones but they can be formulated by Laws of Nonlinear Dynamics. Antipode principles describe differences between Linear and Nonlinear Concepts. The real finding of Noether’s theorems is that symmetrical (linear) interactions operating in symmetrical space do not produce breakthrough effects. The Energy aspect is expressed by the Principles of the Broken and Conserved Perpendicularity. The Third Classical Limit states that Classical Physics is correct in Linear aspect only.
© Copyrights Bojidar Djordjev 2011, 2012
PACS: 01.55.+b, 45.20.-d, 05.45.-a Keywords: General Physics, Concervation Laws, Reactionless propulsion, Free Energy, Nonlinear Dynamics
1. Introduction Hundreds even thousands of claims for possible violating the Conservation Laws effects have circulated in information space for centuries. We know the works of Nicola Tesla, Victor Schauberger, Searl effect, Hans Coler generator, Brown gas fuel sells, the so called Cold Fusion Process and many other. But even well supported by theoretical explanations or/and confirmed experimental evidences all of them remain unacceptable for the entire Physics. Traditionally they have been related to the Baron Munchausen’s story and perpetual motion, ridiculed as ideas of uneducated amateurs and marked impossible. The attitude of Science was formulated by the opinion of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, 1775  which stated that the Academy “will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion”. In the modern times Science makes the next step suitably adding reactionless motion
to perpetual one. Probably the dogmatic concept was formulated few decades earlier, in the year of Newtonian death when the English poet Alexander Pole wrote the epitaph “Nature and nature’s laws lay hid at night; God said 'Let Newton be' and all was light.” One God, one King, one Concept. Actually the achievements of the Linear Concept are not a dogma but the statement that they are the only possible ones is. Today the policy is still in force making every scientist tend to get off the so formed forbidden zone as far as possible. On the other hand in the modern times as Erwin Schrodinger wrote “… Physics stands at a great crisis of ideas.” Hence Science declares that it looks for breakthrough ideas. But what is breakthrough? To be really breakthrough ones they should be something affecting the mainstream, the fundament of the entire Physics. Since the mainstay is the Conservation Laws, the breakthrough in science should be something affecting it, something like a reactionless motion or free energy i.e. coming from the forbidden zone and in this way unacceptable one. Even antigravity - the most guileless and that’s way the most liked one can be transformed in gravitational perpetual engine if the sum of the consumed by the gravity shield energy and the one spent to lift a given mass to some vertical distance is smaller then the new created energy potential of the lifted body after the gravity shield is turned off. So far such relations have been never formulated. That’s way the paradox and the problem is that Science looks for breakthrough in the permitted areas but they are not able to provide it because the accepted there principles and laws reject it like absolutely impossible; hence the process has been blocked for centuries. One day Science will understand that the truth is in the forbidden zone. There is another source for the resistance to the ideas from the forbidden fields of Physics. Since our civilization has been founded on the burning process any possible breakthrough including free energy will dramatically affect serious business interests connected to mining, processing, transporting, distribution and trade with fuels and energy. Tens of millions of people all around the world can lose their jobs. It will cause serious economical, political, social and moral tensions. In additional, free energy can be the reason for financial disaster of many national tax system especially European-type ones, depending on taxes on fuel and energy. Probably to recover loses governments will levy heavy duty on other goods such as food and clothes. The power of governments to control human activity by means of energy will be reduced therefore controlling bureaucracy will increase. It can change many aspects of life and lead, for example war on terror. Do we really need breakthrough in Physics? In the methodological aspect of the problem we can imagine our capacity to understand the subject matter of the Physics like a window. Attempts to make a breakthrough by further complications of math equations of known analysis are unsuccessful because our capacity remains limited and insufficient by the frame of the window. Revolutionary change is possible if we manage to “compress” the matter in the window by means of simplifying it using new principles and concepts, understandable in relation to the Corresponding and other Principles in Physics. Then we can use the discharged space of the window for next development by means of complication till the next (new) limit of our capacity to understand the matter. Actually each of the known laws and principles in Physics has provoked similar effect when formulated. Nomenclature m v, ∆v a b
δ ϕ mass velocity, velocity’s change radius of rotation radius of shaking of SDD Flywheel maximal angle of shaking transitional angle of rotation force, centrifugal force
orbital component of the centrifugal force radial component of the centrifugal force
t time E energy α angle of deflection O, A, B, C … points ω angular speed SDD Sector rated in Diametrical Direction L-NL Linear – Non Linear NLG Natural Logic Gate P⊥D Principle of Perpendicular Deflection PB⊥ Principle of Broken (Lost) Perpendicularity PC⊥ Principle of Conserved Perpendicularity
x, ∆x R, ∆R
orbital displacement, change of the orbital displacement radius, radius’s change the angle of the correct distribution, also the angle of the broken perpendicularity The Law of the Correct Distribution
2. The Author’s work The Author’s work  presents a based on gyroscopic effect Free Torque Generator. We can show the single bodied Sector rated in Diametrical Direction (SDD) Flywheel like a one that consists of connected by weightless connections masses m1 and m2 Fig 1 (a). The flywheel is set in motion by not shown external drive in the way to rotates about axis 1-1 and shakes around the axis of turning Z between the end positioning lines 2-2 and 3-3 at maximal angle δ so the speed of shaking (turning) is maximal when the line connecting the masses is parallel the axis Z. We call “a”, “b” and “δ” main sizes.
Fig. 1. (a) the Author’s Free Torque Generator; (b) in plane projections of the 3D trajectory
x = b cos[δ sin (2ϕ )] − a sin (ϕ )sin[δ sin (2ϕ )]
y = b sin[δ sin (2ϕ )] + a sin (ϕ )cos[δ sin (2ϕ )] z = a cos(ϕ )
The law of motion of a single mass m1 forming closed 3D trajectory is given by an exampled shape of set of three equations (1) as formulated in 2005. Its projection in perpendicular planes is shown in Fig 1 (b). The blue arrows show the arcs of the blue curve (the indicated points of the arcs are vertically distanced with 2a) responsible for the generated angular momentum about Y. We can calculate the 3D coordinates of the positions 1, 2, 3… (not shown) of the mass for each ∆ϕ of the transitional angle of rotation of the flywheel from 0 to 2π radians. If the distance between the points 2 and 3 is not equal the one between 1 and 2 ones we calculate elementary periphery momentum acting on the mass at the point 2 along the angle bisector between the 1-2 and 2-3 lines. Calculating the angle between the same lines we can find the magnitude of the elementary momentum of the (fictitious ) centrifugal force acting on the mass on the point 2 perpendicularly the bisector line. Then we can calculate the projections of both
elementary momentums on the X, Y and Z axes and the elementary angular momentums around the same axes they create. Then we can calculate and sum the projections of the all elementary momentums and angular momentums acting on the all points of the trajectory calculated for every ∆ϕ increase of the angle of rotation for one 2π period. We can design a computer model (program) doing it. It shows the correlation between the generated momentums/angular momentums for one 2π period acting about X, Y and Z in relation to the main sizes “a”, “b” and “δ” i.e. we can find the exact correlation between them to receive maximal reactionless torque and/or force about a given axis. Then carrying out a series of experiments we can find satisfying coincidence between the theoretical and experimental data. If we don’t like to vitiate the analysis involving a fictitious centrifugal force we can form another one, for example studying motion of mass like a mechanical wave with frequency equal the one of rotation and amplitude equal the maximal diversion of shaking. Wave equation (not shown) can be composed by implanting of the relation between angle of rotation and speed of turning. By using the well established wave theory we can find the reactionless forces/torques acting about the axes like acceleration of the projected on the axes mechanical (inertial) wave. Then we can use a third, a fourth or another way to explain the phenomenon of the reactionless motion. But whatever we do the Conservation Laws and the entire Physics state that reactionless motion is absolutely impossible. Obviously the work of the Author like many other similar works remains unacceptable for the well established Physics an in-piece work – an isolated private case (island) in the hostile ocean of Physics. We don’t need to develop more and more complicated analysis in the frame of the entire concepts because they say violation of the well established Conservation Laws is absolutely impossible. But we need a new conceptual study able to provide an acceptable for the entire Physics explanation of these phenomenons in harmony with the existed understandings. 3. First Historical Lesson The question is how to do this? Probably because of the influence of science fiction arts we consider that breakthrough energy and propulsion systems of future should be based on some enigmatic distance star interaction, fields, rays or waves, curved space or black holes, 4, 9 or even 12 dimensions of space that is to say the breakthrough propulsion and energy systems should be developed from the last brunches of Physics. Mechanics looks hopelessly clear and outdated, not so complicated and refined and therefore not able to provide the desired breakthrough. But Physics is a historically created formation united around the mainstay of the Conservation Laws covering all Natural Sciences. Conservation Laws are the main hindrance on the way to the desired breakthrough. On the other hand extraordinary phenomenon is reported in all areas of Physics like for example electromagnetism, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, gravitation... Imagine, for example, that the breakthrough in electromagnetism is explained by Maxwell’s equations i.e. it is transformed into an acceptable shape. It would lead to the conclusion that electromagnetism is a special separated area of Physics – pliable for the breakthrough i.e. not like the others. It would be quite an unfavorable and unacceptable development because it would mean that Physics is not a united by the Conservation Laws formation (science) any more. The point is that if Physics is a united formation, the breakthrough, if possible at all, should be possible in all areas of Physics including Mechanics. So the first historical lesson states that since the Classical Physics has been initially (originally) created in (Classical) Mechanics shape and the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Angular Momentum are mechanical (inertial) the most favourable development would be if the breakthrough is made in the Classical Mechanics in mechanical shape i.e. based on the property inertia of matter. The Equivalence Principle gives reason to think that even connected to electromagnetism antigravity is a mechanical phenomenon. Another argument is that if possible energy breakthrough can be carried out in all fields of Physics possible breakthrough in propulsion can not avoid Classical Mechanics, because travelling (so far) is a mechanical (inertial) event hence it should be based on technologies for overcoming the resistance of the vehicle’s inertia.
4. Nonlinear Concept Actually we know that the Conservation Laws are not satisfactory for nonlinear systems and non inertial frames of reference. The Principle of Superposition  states that for all linear systems the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually. Hence we can expect that for nonlinear systems the net response caused by two or more stimuli is not equal the sum of the responses which would be caused by each one of them individually. The so declared inequality actually is violation of the aquations declared by the Conservation Laws i.e. they can be violated! Wait a minute! If the one (the Classical Mechanics) declaring the inviolability of the Conservation Laws states at the same time that there are uncovered areas and cases i.e. the violation of the Conservation Laws is not absolutely impossible the more so as it points the way it is possible what we wait for? Why don’t we study the pointed potential opportunities calmly, systematically and in a businesslike way without unnecessary dogmatic resistance? On the other hand the Author doesn’t complain because he realizes that he has developed his ideas thanks to the Dogma guarding the forbidden zone virgin. He just mentions it as a possible subject of change. So the question is what exactly the Nonlinear Mechanics/Physics is? There are plenty of books, papers and conferences about the subject of nonlinearity. We know nonlinear dynamical phenomenon of complex systems (chaos), nonlinear mechanics of fluids, nonlinear chemistry, nonlinear deformation of structures, nonlinear energy transfer/transformation, nonlinear electromagnetic effects, nonlinear thermodynamics and many others. In Mathematics there is a special class of nonlinear equations. Actually each function having argument in power bigger/smaller then zero as well each trigonometric function can be taken as nonlinear one. For example in  wave and pendulum is discussed as nonlinear ones. Does it mean that the Author’s device in Fig 1 (a) and  described by the mentioned (not shown) wave equation is nonlinear? On the other side each of the equations (1) is also a wave one i.e. nonlinear one isn’t it? Is it possible linearity to be associated with processes caring out along a geometrical or virtual line but nonlinearity is a process out of the line or nonlinearity means just a non proportional relation between the incoming and out-coming quantities? Or most likely nonlinear is everything that is not linear? So what is linear? Classical Mechanics is geometrically linear because it studies interaction consisting of equal and opposite forces/torques only. This notion is the corollary from Galilean Principle of Projections actually stating that a force (then the principle has been extended to shown by vector torque) acting perpendicularly to a given direction is not able to affect it because its component (projection) to the direction is zero. The so accepted Linear Concept ignores the generosity of the Universe offering unlimited number of perpendicular directions. Thermodynamics, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics and other brunches of Physics deal with the differences between two or more different temperatures, pressures, electric, magnetic or gravitational potentials forming a virtual line. Hence for example entropy concept pointing the lowest end of the temperature line seems to be logical. Galilean Principle of Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity seems to be linear also because they deal with different speeds of moving in straight line bodies. Gravitation is spatial phenomenon but Newtonian Law of Gravitation calculates its linear aspect only. General Theory of Relativity deals with a spatial gravitation but from linear point of view. Also, magnetism, electromagnetism and electrostatic phenomenon are spatial ones but we calculate and use their linear aspect only. Time is linear and unidirectional. Energy is a spontaneous natural ability of any potential to (move) flow from high to low magnitude (force, level) overcoming resistance. That’s way we understand and use energy like a linear (conservative) activity. Life on Earth exists because of linear energy flow from the Sun. We compose our thoughts and speech in line. Both sides of mathematical equation are equal and opposite. Justice is based on the idea for equal and opposite respond (retribution) therefore we reject spontaneously every claim for free energy and reaction less motion filling it like unjustly illegal and immoral one. We look for the road to the nonlinear area in Mechanics. Apparently the Superposition Principle is a general conclusion of the experience with the Conservation Laws. The Conservation Laws in Mechanics are generalization of earlier Newtonian ones  that formed the first completed concept in Physics – which in their turn are generalization of earlier (most of all Galilean) achievements. The Newtonian Third Law claims equal and opposite forces. The Second one formulates the magnitude of the force in relation
to the change rate of the speed of moving forward mass. This is the reason both of them are linear ones undoubtedly. The First Law states  (one of the many possible formulation) that: “Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.” The “state of rest or motion” is related to relatively point of view; “uniform motion in a straight line” means that every body tends to conserve its motion with constant speed in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. Wait a moment! It turns out that there are two dimensions (conditions) of the uniform motion: the speed and the direction. They both have to be constant and they both are subject of change by an external force. They both are equal in rights conserved inertial values. Both of them need momentum/energy to be changed and at the same time they resist the change. But why the Second and Third Newtonian Laws deal only with the case when the uniform motion is disturbed by means of changed by external force (linear) speed (momentum) but direction is constant? The alternative case when speed (momentum) is constant but direction varies has been not developed. One can oppose that the second case has been described by the relation about centrifugal force. But since the centrifugal force is pointed by the Classical Mechanics like a fictive, fictitious or pseudo one  (actually in larger aspect all inertial forces are fictive or pseudo ones) the second case of uniform motion disturbance has never received the deserved status of Natural Laws. Hence the Linear Concept has been determined and established like the only possible one. How has it happened? Obviously writing his famous “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica“  Newton made a lot of efforts to study motion along a curved path (of planets) developing the perfect method of math analysis splitting it to elementary linearity i.e. actually intended to study nonlinearity from linear point of view. But probably that’s way he missed to formulate a clear and simple nonlinear generalization similar to the one of the Linear Dynamics. The post Newtonian scientists accepted Newtonian legacy (the Linear Concept) as the only possible one probably because they had to serve the needs of the based on the burning process (i.e. related to the linear aspect of thermodynamics) Industrial Revolution. But the contemporary need for Space Exploration Revolution changes the rules of the game. 5. Laws of Nonlinear Dynamics Therefore if nonlinearity in Mechanics is something related to the inertial potential of the changed direction of moving mass the question is how to describe it? Let the original straight direction of the mass m along the line “1-1” (Fig 2 a) be changed along the line “2-2” i.e. under angle α between them.
Fig. 2. (a) Inertial effect of changed direction; (b) nonlinear element
The traditional acceptance is that the mass changes its direction by turning around fixed to a fundament centre “O” along the arc “ABC”. Hence the inertial effect of the changed direction is calculated by integration of the projections of all elementary vectors (momentums) of centrifugal force Fc dt on the direction of the angle bisector of the angle of turning relative “O”. But since Classical Mechanics assumes centrifugal force like a pseudo one we will try to explore the nonlinear effect by using the “legal” linear force (momentum). We release the mass from the centre “O” letting it move
linearly along the line “1-1”. Then we apply to the mass relative the fundament an opposite momentum F1-1t=mv along “1-1” so that the mass it stops in the point “D” applying equal and opposite momentum to the fundament. Then we apply to the mass a momentum F2-2t=mv along “2-2” line. The mass accelerates so that passing the point “C” it already possesses orbital momentum mv reacting to the fundament with equal and opposite one. According to the linear mechanics the changed direction of mv affects on the fundament with two momentums F1-1t=mv and F2-2t=mv. The module (2) of their vector sum is:
⎛ 180 − α ⎞ ⎛ 180 − α ⎞ 2−2 Ft = F 1−1t cos⎜ ⎟ + F t cos⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Since F1-1t=F2-2t=mv and cos[(180-α)/2]=sin(α/2) we find that the inertial effect of the changed (deflected) direction of momentum mv at angle α or in short the deflecting momentum is equal two times the deflected momentum multiplied sinus of the half of the angle of deflection:
⎛α ⎞ Ft = 2mv sin ⎜ ⎟ ⎝2⎠
We call (3) the Second Law of Nonlinear Dynamics. Following the Newtonian formalism we can formulate the Third Law of Nonlinear Dynamics: The deflecting momentum (Ft) acts along the angle bisector of the contiguous angle of the one of the deflection (α), Fig 2 (b). The Laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics reflect the so called Principle of Deflection (PD) dealing with the case momentum is constant, direction varies, which is an antipode to the Linear Principle (momentum varies, direction is constant). We can point Ft (in blue, Fig 2 b) to or out of the deflecting point. In the specific case the angle of deflection α=600, Ft=mv. We call the formation consisting of deflected incoming, outcome (in black) and deflecting momentums a nonlinear element. Unlike this the formation that consists of equal and opposite momentums according to the Third Newtonian Law is called a linear element. Actually the vector formation on the right of Fig 2 (b) can be assumed like a compilation of linear and nonlinear elements. Relation (3) is very similar to the ones used in geometrical optics and collusion. Also it is in use for example in Nuclear Physics studying the Rutherford scattering  (see relations (2) and (3) from ). Obviously in the territory covered by a Classical Limit the deflecting momentum in not taken like a fictitious or pseudo but like a real one. On the other hand if we develop the relation (3) for a very small period of time ∆t and angle of deflection ∆α and assuming that sin(∆α/2)=∆α/2 and then that the angle of deflection α is equal the angle of turning about centre “O” between point “A” and “C” Fig 2 (a) we will find that:
F = 2mv
Fc = mvω
We receive the well known relation of the “fictive” centrifugal force. Fig 3 shows the arrangement of the Linear and Nonlinear concepts. Since the First Newtonian Law formulates the existence of linear and nonlinear inertial potentials it can be considered as both the First Law of Linear and Nonlinear Dynamics. The Second and Third Newtonian Laws clarify the properties of liner inertia only, so they can be specified as the ones of the Linear Dynamics.
Fig. 3. Linear and Nonlinear Concepts
We can test the Laws of Linear and Nonlinear Dynamics by exemplary studying of the one of the most speculated idea for generation of reactionless momentum by periodically change of the orbital speed of unbalanced mass (Fig 4). To make it simple let’s assume that the orbital speed of the rotating about centre “O” mass decelerates with ∆v in point “A” and then accelerates in the opposite point “B” with the same ∆v. The linear inertial effect (in blue) on the centre of rotation “O” of the changed orbital momentum in these points is shown by two linear elements. The nonlinear inertial effect (in blue) of the changed direction of the orbital momentum m(v-∆v) from “A” to “B” and mv from “B” to “A” is presented by two nonlinear elements.
Fig. 4. Linear and Nonlinear elements application
The sum of the blue vectors is (6):
180 180 = m∆v + m∆v + 2m(v − ∆v )sin 2 2
The satisfied equation confirms that unbalanced momentum is not generated. For example Provatidis  has studied the same problem like a separate case and together with varying radius (the varying radius will be discussed in Fig 7) using traditional methods. Everybody can compare the complexity of the
traditional work reflecting the way of thinking in Physics to the simplicity of the presented here one. Here is the promised simplification. Now we are ready for the next complication till the next limit of our ability to understand the matter. 6. Principle of Perpendicular Deflection (P⊥D) The Laws of Nonlinear Dynamics are step forward but not the final point. On the road to reactionless propulsion we have to understand that travel is a linear inertial phenomenon. On the other hand extended Galileo’s Principle of Projections states that any momentum/angular momentum affects or/and is affected by another one of the same kind with the cosine of the angle between them. Therefore perpendicular momentums or angular momentums are mutually inertial isolated mechanical (inertial) potentials. We call this property a in-(the given main) kind (of motion) inertial isolation. On the other hand momentum and angular momentum with common applying point do not affect each other. We call this property a between-the (main) kinds (of motion) inertial isolation. Finally we must understand that if somehow a momentum or angular momentum sent along a given direction penetrates through in-kind inertial isolation (i.e. in perpendicular direction) the penetrated one is in fact a reactionless one relative the new direction, the same is its reaction to the initial direction and the same their vector sum is. If somehow a momentum or angular momentum penetrates through between-the kinds inertial isolation i.e. if momentum changes angular momentum or angular momentum changes momentum it leads to reactionless effects also. We can generalize that: Any penetration through the in-kind and between-kinds inertial isolation leads to reactionless effects. Since the both cases are connected they formulate the Principle of Perpendicular Deflection (P⊥D). So we can answer the question what linear and nonlinear is. In the ordinary Linear case Fig 5 (a) if the body A (vehicle) applies momentum (the black vector) to the body B along “X” it receives equal momentum (in brown) along the same axis and in its turn reacts to the body A with equal and opposite reactive one (in red). But in the case of nonlinear interaction Fig 5 (b) the body B receives momentum (brown) not aligned with the initial (black) one but a diverted one. We can decompose the diverted (brown) momentum in two components: a green one acting along the axis X of the initial one and a blue one along the perpendicular axis Y. Then we can suppose that the reaction of the brown momentum along initial axis X (in red) also can be decomposed in two constituting momentums (components, not shown) responding to the green and blue momentums. We say that the perpendicularly deflected (blue) component of the brown momentum is reactionless about the Y axis the same is its responding reaction about the initial X axis. In fact the reactionless effect is equal their vector sum (not shown).
Fig. 5. (a) linear interaction; (b) nonlinear interaction (Principle of Perpendicular Deflection) (P⊥D)
Is it really possible? Practice proves “yes”! Examples for linear and nonlinear interactions involving forces are shown in Fig 1, 2, 3 and 4 in . In the nonlinear case in Fig 3 and 4  each of the received movements as well as their vector sum is not aligned to the initial momentum. Hence not shown perpendicular deflected component exists. How it happens? In the typical example of gyroscope  the initial angular momentums are deflected by a couple of opposite centrifugal forces created by the opposite
bended like arcs trajectories (pointed by the blue arrows in Fig 1 (b) described by the particles from the rotating disc. But there are other possibilities also. Hence if the Linear Concept consists of one principle (equal and opposite) in two cases (forces and torques) only, the Nonlinear Concept is expressed by few principles and cases each one of them deserving a separated discussion. 7. Cycle Procedure Typically Nature uses nonlinear interactions described by opened trajectories where the nonlinear effect is temporal. Probably only closed cycle nonlinear interaction (from the point of view of vehicle, for outside observer the moving closed trajectories looks opened again) is able to provide a permanent nonlinear propulsive effect. The problem is that if we (from the vehicle) pushing the body B along X Fig 5 (b) createing reactionless momentum about Y, then we have to pull the body back generating an opposite reactionless momentum balancing the previous one. That’s why the vectors in Fig 3 and 4  are double (forward-backward) arrowed. Hence permanent and unidirectional nonlinear propulsive effect can be received by means of special kind of cycle procedure. The so called Linear-NonLinear (L-NL) (or if you like NonLinear-Linear) cycle procedure works because of the consecutively alternating linear and nonlinear interactions. If we push the body B along X generating reactionless momentum along Y because of the nonlinear interaction Fig 5 (b) then before pulling it back we switch over the interaction from nonlinear to linear one. Hence pulling back the body B it reacts linearly like in the Fig 5 (a) (imagine all vectors opposite directed), conserving the reactionless momentum of the nonlinear effect about Y. Repeating the altering again and again a unidirectional series of reactionless momentums are received. It means that we control nonlinearity! Is it possible? L-NL can be explained by the linear-nonlinear properties of the SDD Flywheel . The SDD Flywheel reacts nonlinearly when its work brunches (or masses m1 and m2 from Fig 1) cross a line parallel the axis of turning Z because it acts like inertial conductor transferring angular momentum to the (inertial isolated) perpendicular axis Y i.e. penetrating through in-kind inertial isolation. But on the other hand the SDD Flywheel reacts linearly when its work brunches cross a line parallel the axis Y because there is no transfer of angular momentum to the axis Y, i.e. SDD Flywheel acts like an inertial isolator in respect to the in-kind inertial isolation. We say that the alternating L-NL property of the SDD Flywheel can be defined like a one of mechanical (inertial) semiconductor. Unlike this the immutable property of disk shaped flywheel is defined as a one of inertial conductor. In fact the law of motion (1) presents exactly L-NL type cycle procedure. 8. Natural Logic Gates Another kind of Cycle Procedure results from the based on Boolean Algebra Logic Gates . A modern technological pride of humanity, they are in the fundament of all digital electronics, computers and “thinking” systems. The technology is called digital because operating with two kind of signals “0” and “1” (no or yes) where in fact the importance of the magnitudes of the signals is replaced by the importance of their existence. The logic gates are devices that usually possess two or more entrances and one exit. The kind of the received in the exit signal is the result of the logic operations of the Boolean Algebra between the entered signals. The upper side of Fig 6 (a) shows the symbol, the Boolean Algebra and the truth table of the “AND” – type logic gate. In the lower side of the figure is shown a classical disc shaped gyroscope. The disc rotates about axis X with some angular momentum, turns about Z with another angular momentum and the result of this is a third angular momentum generated about Y i.e. the same like in the logic gate there is a system of two entering mechanical sygnals (about X and Z) and one outgoing one (about Y). All of them are mutually inertial isolated mechanical (inertial) potentials but on the other hand they are connected in system by means of penetration of the mechanical signal(s) trough the in-kind inertial isolation. If we mark the existence/non-existence of angular momentums with “1” and “0” we will find that the logic of the gyroscope responds exactly to the logic of the truth table of the “AND”-type logic gate.
Fig. 6. (a) “AND” logic gate; (b) Natural Logic Gates; (c) reactionless logics If we mark the possible directions of angular momentums with “+1” and “-1” we receive together with the “0” a triple code logic system. The truth table of the triple code logic system of the disc shaped gyroscope is shown in Fig 6 (b). We call this subject a “Natural Logic Gate” (NLG). If we mark the existence/non-existence and possible directions of the magnetic field, mechanical motion of a wire and electro moving force (e. m. f.) from the classical electromagnetic case with “+1”, “0” and “-1” (Fig 6 (b) below) we will find that the logic relation between them responds to the same “AND”-type NLG truth table. Actually these are the cases of electric motor and generator known as the rules of the left and right hand. It means that inertial and electromagnetic shapes of NLG possessing common mechanical enter/exit can work joined or layered forming complicated structures similarly to the ones shown in . Studying the area step by step the Author has defined some 5-8 (depending on the point of view) NLGs i.e 5-8 systems of connections in systems through the inertial isolation. Some of them express the “AND”-type logic but the others - their own one. What else NLGs do? Besides their many properties NLGs express another way to control nonlinearity. In their mechanical shapes they possess connected in system mutually inertial isolated entrances and exits. Hence the direction of the nonlinear (received through an inertial isolation) output mechanical signal depends on the combinations of the directions of the input signals according to the rows (logic states) of the truth table Fig 6 (b). Therefore a cycle procedure founded this property, in principle consists of, continuously altering two truly logic states generates unidirectional output nonlinear reactionless mechanical signal. For example in the truth table on Fig 6 (c) the opposite directed output angular momentums around Y (in blue) are in mutual balance so their net output is zero the same as the net output of the reactive to the causing turning around Z (mutually opposite) ones is (in orange). But the reactions (in red) of the angular momentums causing rotation around X (in green) on the vehicle form a unidirectional line i.e. a reactionless torque. It means that reactionless torque can be produced even by the classical disc shaped flywheel! It has been never done before most probably because of dogmatic reasons. In 2006 the Author built and tested two similarly looking devices demonstrating L-NL and NLG cycle procedures. 9. The Emmy Noether’s theorems The existed theory states that each mechanical system is a closed one if external applied forces don’t exist. A system consists of N particles can be described by 6N-1 integrals of motion. The most important are three of them possessing the property of additively. They are called integrals of Momentum, Angular Momentum and Energy – the three quantities corresponding to the Laws of Conservation of Momentum, Angular Momentum and Energy remaining unaltered. The Emmy Noether’s theorems  disclose that all of them deeply descend from basic properties of space and time. The Conservation of Momentum descends from homogeneity of space i.e. the space possesses the same properties in all points - any parallel shifting of the system doesn’t change its property i.e. its reticence is conserved. The Conservation of Angular Momentum descends from isotropy of space i.e. the space possesses the same properties in all directions hence any changing of orientation of the system doesn’t change its behavior. And the
Conservation of Energy descends from homogeneity of time i.e. time is uniform in all points. We will discuss the connection between energy and time in the next chapter. The Noether’s analysis is based on the Hamiltonian and Lagrangean mechanics  which in their turn were developed from the Newtonian one. So let’s start from the beginning: The Newtonian Laws of Dynamics analyze properties of the linear interaction between masses where momentum varies, direction is conserved. But the point is that they study the property of the linear inertia of the interacting masses instead of studying the property of the (linear) space containing (holding allowing) the linear inertial interaction between the masses i.e. they do not study the interaction between bodies and space but the one between bodies don’t they? Lagrange reformulated the Classical Mechanics describing the force acting on a given particle as a gradient of scalar function of energy. Hamiltonian mechanics reformulation replaces speed of motion with momentum. Then they make it in a 3D space in respect to the in-kind and betweenkinds inertial isolation i. e. conserving the linear concept in the 3D space. But the important is that since both of them reformulate the Classical Mechanics in fact they reformulate the formulation of the balance of forces acting between the bodies constituting the mechanical system. They do not formulate/reformulate some kind of balance of forces between bodies and space. Hence the only connection with space is that the linear case from the Newtonian Laws of Dynamics has been extended to the system of N particles acting in 3D space introducing the second main kind of motion and making connection between the degrees of freedom of the system  and the dimensions of space. But since it is done in respect to the inertial isolation between the directions of space and the main kinds of motion, the degrees of freedom of the so formed 3D closed system are mutually independent (isolated) also. It means that interaction/motion is carried out only in the frame of the given degree of freedom and no motion can pass from one to another degree of freedom and this way the Linear Concept is conserved. Therefore when we discuss the ability of 3D closed system to conserve Momentum and Angular Momentum in fact we discuss the ability of the property linear inertia to do this i.e. ability of the linear interactions between bodies expressed by couples of equal and opposite forces/torques each acting in the frame of its degree of freedom (with ho any connection to the others) to do this. Then if we say dogmatically that only independent degrees of freedom are possible  ignoring the old good well known gyroscope with connected in system degrees of freedom in combination with the dogmatic statement that “…We will not deal any more with any cases of violation of the Conservation Laws…” we can easy find that the violation of the Conservation Laws are not possible at all. They say she was a good mathematician. But the point is that we do not have right to transfer the linear inertial property of the interacting masses accepted dogmatically like the only possible one to the property(s) of space then making the reversed conclusion that the effects of the conserved quantities are consequence of the properties of space i.e. the inertial properties of the interacting masses depend upon the properties of space. For example, it is similar to say that the Pythagorean Theorem is result of the properties of the piece of paper the rectangular triangle is drawn on. Yes, if we assume dogmatically that the rectangular triangle is the only possible one we can easily associate the properties of the triangle to the ones of the paper. But ones we understand that there are few kinds of triangles we can find that the Pythagorean Theorem is result of the properties of the rectangular triangle in spite of this that they both are in plane object/subject allowing the triangle to be placed on the paper. In the Classical Physics based on the recognition that there are linearly symmetrical (equal and opposite) interactions caring out in the frame of isolated degree of freedom only such transfer of properties most likely looks quite natural. But once we include nonlinear interactions expressed by connected in system degrees of freedom in the discussion we can separate two independent factors: 1. Properties of the given (linear or nonlinear) interaction 2. Properties of space. Does it mean that space is not symmetrical? Not at all! The property of space is to provide three symmetrical perpendicular directions. The property of the given kind of interaction is to operate relative a single direction only in respect to the inertial isolation or to operate about few of them at the same time exchanging mechanical energy (momentum/angular momentum) through the inertial isolation. Symmetry is another property of space to conserve the properties of all kind of interactions isotropy and homogeny. The human experience with rocket engine based on linear interactions and spatial ones between Control Moment Gyros/Gyrocompass and vehicle on the other hand demonstrates that homogeneity and isotropy
of space really exists. Obviously symmetry of space conserves the properties of all kinds of interactions including electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak ones. The story of Noether’s theorems is explained in . Creating the Special Theory of Relativity Einstein didn’t have any problems with the Conservation Laws because it was based on the accepted Linear Concept with the differences that the speed of light is constant and extremely high. But involving Gravitation in the General Theory of Relativity Einstein met serious problems with the Conservation Laws because of its spatial nature. Something had to be done. Math formalism has been expected and warmly accepted. Actually the real finding of the Noether’s theorems is that symmetrical interactions operating in symmetrical space do not violate the Conservation Laws. Therefore in principle the breakthrough should be possible if: 1. Symmetrical interactions operate in asymmetrical space 2. Asymmetrical interactions operate in symmetrical space and 3. Asymmetrical interactions operate in asymmetrical space. Asymmetrical space supposes connection (dependence) between space and interacting masses i.e. some kind of inertial energy exchange between them. Since space is really symmetrical and/because such exchange has been never observed i.e. space plays a passive role just conserving the properties of interaction, in principle the only way to breakthrough in Physics is if asymmetrical interactions operate in symmetrical space. Hence if conservation of momentum and angular momentum is the result of the property of the symmetrical interaction carried out in isolated degrees of freedom in the same way possible violation is the result of the properties of asymmetrical one carried out in connected degrees of freedom. Hence if symmetry or asymmetry of the given interaction is a local inertial phenomenon belonging to the interaction, the symmetry of space is a distanced phenomenon. How to discern symmetrical interactions? In the spatial linear interaction the degrees of freedom are mutually independent. If we remove or change the direction or magnitude of one, two or more of the acting momentums or/and angular momentums it will not cause any changes in the rest ones because all of them are inertial isolated (independent) so the degrees of freedom are. Hence this is not a system of connected momentums/angular momentums and degrees of freedom but a collection (set) of independent ones. This is the fundamental concept the entire Physics is based on so this is the concept the Hamiltonian and Lagrangean mechanics and the Noether’s theorems are based on. How to discern asymmetrical interactions? As pointed above nonlinear interaction is a spatial one able to send momentum/angular momentum between inertial isolated degrees of freedom Fig 5 (b) i.e. making them mutually connected (dependent). For example, in the classical case of gyroscope Fig 6 (b) if we change the direction or magnitude of the turning about Z and/or rotation about X it will cause changes in the generated angular momentum about Y. We say that in the case of asymmetrical interactions the degrees of freedom and the acting about them momentums and angular momentums are connected in system. In fact each of the NLGs determines a specific way of connection. This case is out of range of the Hamiltonian and Lagrangean mechanics and the Noether’s theorems. We can generalize that: Symmetrical (linear) is a closed system of interacting bodies with mutually isolated (independent) degrees of freedom, so mutually isolated are the mechanical quantities acting in them. Asymmetrical (nonlinear) is a closed system of interacting bodies with mutually connected (depended) degrees of freedom, so the mechanical quantities acting in them are, so mutually connected are the mechanical quantities acting in them. Respected inertial isolation respects the Conservation Laws. Violated inertial isolation violates the Conservation Laws. 10. Energy In Physics, Energy within the space time is neither created nor destroyed! It can be only transformed from one to another kind. In the frame of the Liner Principle stating that interacting bodies exchange only equal and opposite momentums/angular momentums acting only within independent degrees of freedom, reactionless motion is possible only if one of the opposite magnitudes is bigger/smaller then the other one i.e. the question for reactionless motion is quantitative. P⊥D states that perpendicularly transferred momentum or angular
momentum is reactionless because the direction of the perpendicular transfer is inertial isolated from the sending one, hence it is not important if the magnitudes are equal. We say that P⊥D transforms categorically the question (aim) for reactionless motion from quantitative to qualitative one. But the question for conformation or violation of the Energy Conservation remains a question of balance of the quantities between the incoming and outcome inertial isolated magnitudes (energies). We say that the energy question remains quantitative because P⊥D is not able to transform it into qualitative one. We need another couple of antipode principles able to transform categorically the energy question from quantitative to qualitative one in harmony with the existed ones. We call it Energy Principles. They deserve tens of pages of detailed explanation which is not possible to be done here. If it is acceptable the Author suggests just a short announcement. The Energy Principles deal with the perpendicularity between orbital momentum and centrifugal force. They are: Principle of Broken (Lost) Perpendicularity (PB⊥) and Principle of Conserved Perpendicularity (PC⊥). In the case of constant radius the deflected by centripetal force orbital momentum creates balancing the centripetal force centrifugal one both of them inertial isolated from the (perpendicular) orbital momentum. Hence orbital momentum/energy remains unaffected by the both forces. The NLG formed by the inertial isolated values work like an inertial diode between the entered orbital momentum and the outgoing centrifugal force. But in case of change radius from R to R1 (Fig 7) the Classical Mechanics states that the angular momentum is conserved i.e. mvR=mv1R1. If for example R>R1 (the upper case from Fig 7) then v<v1 and therefore the orbital kinetic energy Ek<Ek1. The centripetal force is always directed from the orbiting body to the physical centre of rotation “O” because it descends and applies from that centre and at the same time it is perpendicular to the orbiting momentum because it is the reason for its deflection. But in contrast to this during the change of the radius the body rotates geometrically about a shifted centre “O1”, hence the centrifugal force already directed from “O1” to the orbiting body is not perpendicular to the orbiting momentum. This is the field of the Principle of Broken Perpendicularity (PB⊥). The radial (relative the physical centre “O”) component of the centrifugal force balances dynamically the centripetal one but the orbital (both not shown) component of the centrifugal force is directed in the direction of the orbital momentum if the radius decreases (see the upper example) or against it if the radius increases (the lower example). Hence we can find that the orbital component of the acting from “O1”centrifugal force is the reason for the changed orbital momentum. One can say that in fact it is a Coriolis force but the point is that the force is a projection of the acting from the geometrical center of rotation “O1” centrifugal force – its other projection is the force balances the centripetal one.
Fig 7. Principle of the Broken Perpendicularity (PB⊥) in cases of rotation
We can easily calculate that the work done by the centripetal force against the resistance of the radial component of the centrifugal one (the upper example) in the distance ∆R=R-R1 is equal to the increase of the orbital kinetic energy Ek1-Ek and vice versa: the work of the of the radial component of the centrifugal force against the resistance of the centripetal one in the distance ∆R=R1-R is equal to the decrease of the orbital kinetic energy Ek-Ek1. Therefore we have reason to maintain that this is a case of energy transfer
from/to inertial isolated orbital and radial directions and the diode model of the NLG is replaced by the one of inertial conductor because of the broken (lost) perpendicularity between the centrifugal force and orbital momentum. PB⊥ connects the radial (potential) and orbital (kinetic) energies in balance. We formulate the “E+ = constant” Conservation Law stating that the change of the orbital (real) energy is equal to the change of the radial (fictive) one i.e. their sum is always equal constant. But if the fictive energy is transformed to/from the real one is it really a fictive one? It appears that the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is not an independent one (one of the three independent Conservation Laws in the Classical Mechanics, for Momentum, Angular Momentum and Energy) but it is a direct consequence of the E+ = constant Conservation Law i.e. it is a direct result of the balance between the fictive and real energies. This conclusion is unacceptable for the Classical Mechanics because it states that centrifugal force is fictive, fictitious and pseudo one hence it performs a fictive work (energy). Classical Mechanics accepts the orbital energy like the only real one (probably) because the only orbital forces create torque (forming the second main kind of motion) operating the machines of humans. But if the fictive energy is really a fictive one does it means that we can pup out a real energy from the fictive one. Not at all! Once we understand that the radial energy is not fictive, E+ = constant will be taken like just one of the many formulations of the Energy Conservation Law. Anyhow the Principle of the Broken Perpendicularity (PB⊥) confirms the conservation of energy and therefore the Liner Concept (Fig 8). In Astrophysics the Kepler’s Laws describing the elliptic orbits of celestial bodies are a perfect confirmation of the PB⊥. Since the Sun is placed in one of the focuses of the ellipse, the gravitational (centripetal) force is always directed to this focus and always perpendicular to the orbital momentum as the reason for its deflection. But the changing distance to the Sun makes the planet to rotate geometrically around a shifted variable centre. Hence the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the gravitational one and perpendicular to the orbiting momentum when the planet crosses the line of the focuses only (apogee and perigee). In the trajectories between them gravitational force is balanced dynamically by the radial (directed to the Sun) component of the acting from the shifted centre centrifugal one. The orbital component of the centrifugal force is directed in the direction of the orbital momentum increasing it between apogee and perigee and vice versa – it is directed opposite the orbital momentum between perigee and apogee decreasing it. The work of the gravitational force against the resistance of the radial component of the centrifugal one in the distance of the difference between apogee and perigee is equal to the increase of the kinetic energy of the orbiting planet between these points and vice versa. The next step is to understand that since the orbital and radial components are products (origin) of the acting from the geometrical centre O1 centrifugal force the energy balance is possible if the angle θ (Fig 7) between the centrifugal force acting from the geometrical centre O1 and the centripetal force to the physics centre O accepts always a exact value to satisfy the balance. Therefore we call the angle θ the one of the correct distribution (between the radial and orbital components) guarantying the veracity of the Conservation Laws. Actually this is the same angle of the perpendicularity is broken. Hence we can record (7) formulating that the E+ = constant Conservation Law is satisfied if for a given period of time the work done by the orbital component of the centrifugal force Fco in the distance of the orbital displacement ∆x plus its change ∆x’ (increase if the radius decreases) is equal the work of the radial component Fcr of the same force in the distance of the radial displacement ∆R.
Fco (∆x + ∆x ' ) = Fcr ∆R
The angle of the broken perpendicularity θ distributes the acting from the geometrical centre O’ centrifugal force Fc between its orbital and radial components in the way:
Fc = Fco Fr = c sin θ cosθ
Extracting Fco from (8) and replacing it in (7) we receive that the tangent of the angle θ satisfying the E = constant Conservation Law is equal:
∆R ∆x + ∆x '
We can record from the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum that the relation between the change of the orbital speed (momentum) and the change of the radius is:
mvr = m(v + ∆v)( R − ∆R)
v∆R R − ∆R
Multiplying the both sides by dt we receive that the change of the orbital displacement ∆x’ is:
∆x ' = ∆x∆R R − ∆R
Replacing (12) in (9) we receive that the tangent of the exact angle θ of the broken perpendicularity distributing the acting from O1 centrifugal force between its orbital and radial components in the way to satisfying the “E+ = constant” and then the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and the Kepler’s Laws is equal to:
tgθ = ∆R R ± ∆R ∆x R
Where +R/-R is taken for increasing/decreasing radius. Let us repeat one’s again: The perpendicularity between the centrifugal force and orbital momentum is always broken in the way to distribute the acting from O1 centrifugal force between its orbital and radial components so the work done by the components is to be equal. We call the relation (13) the Law of the Correct (from the point of view of the Conservation Laws) Distribution (CDL). All of the related to energy concepts in the entire Classical Physics even the ones claimed to be nonlinear (but in fact satisfying the Conservation Laws) are founded on the PB⊥. But we can find from the above analysis that energized values (orbital and radial forces) are distributed (managed) by means of the non energized value of the angle of the broken perpendicularity. Then we must understand that every change (disturbance under some circumstances) of the Angle of the Correct Distribution off its correct value (13) leads to incorrect distribution. Every violation of the Law of the Correct Distribution leads to violation of the “E+ = constant” and then the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and the Kepler’s Laws. Every angle of distribution bigger or smaller then the correct one (13) combined with the specifics of increased or decreased radius and the specifics of the reason of the disturbance leads to large spectrum of anomalies in all areas of Physics. Some of them Science accepts like natural facts, another category it tries to explain like separated cases building models but the rest of them Science simply refuses to discuss. A specific case of violation of the CD Law is possible when the physical centre of rotation is shifted in the way to maintain the centrifugal force perpendicular to the orbiting momentum despite of this that the centrifugal force does work overcoming resistance of centripetal one. Hence although the work done in radial direction the orbital momentum remains unchanged by the centrifugal force because of their mutually inertial isolation.The done work is a new created energy. The above NLG inertial diode model is recovered in the case of the performed work. This is the field of the Principle of Conserved Perpendicularity (PC⊥). The Principle ranges over a few cases determined by two criterions. It is demonstrated in some works like for example ,  and .
11. Some possible developments The Laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics are similar to the ones of optic (deflection and reflection) and theory of collusion. Flat mechanical wave and mechanical pendulum can be presented by means of chain of linear and nonlinear elements. NLGs (including the ones not disclosed here) initially formulated as a kind of Cycle Procedure possess much fundamental meaning because they connect both inertial and electromagnetic properties of matter. On the other hand each charged particle possesses both inertial and electromagnetic properties also. Hence NLGs and Nonlinear Dynamics can help us to find another interpretation of Chaos, Vortex, Distribution and Heidelberg’s Principle of Non Determination. Spatial electromagnetic wave can be reproduced by NLGs. Using the discrete (digital) behavior of NLGs we can reproduce the discrete (fixed orbits, spin…) Bohr model of atom  like a self organized and self supporting structure. Creating the nonlinear model of atom we will find why the orbit, spin and angular momentum of electron is fixed (discrete, quantum) value and what exactly Plank’s constant is. The dependences in the Quantum Mechanics are very similar to the ones from the nonlinear one. It seems that Quantum Mechanics is most of all a nonlinear one. If we manage to reproduce the fabric of matter from similar nonlinear point of view probably we can get closer to the real nature of Inertia, Magnetism and Gravitation. It seems that Nature is most of all a nonlinear one. Probably cold fusion and radioactive decay are nonlinear effects also. Imagine that in the case of Oxyhydrogen generation (Brown gas)  pulsing electric field shakes hydrogen atoms like pendulums or unbalanced masses around the much heavier oxygen atom similarly in the examples from ,  and . We can assume that the declared by many authors easy (with a little invested incoming energy) breaking up of water molecule can be explained by means of New Created Energy according to the PC⊥. Consequently we can suppose that the New Created Energy is equal to the difference between the energy potential of the produced Brown gas and the invested energy. The General Theory of Relativity explains the behavior of bodies in gravitational field with a curved by the gravity space-time. So far we do not have instruments to measure the curvature directly – we measure it by indirection by the behavior of passing via gravitational field by bodies (photons). The point is that the behavior can be explained like nonlinear effect of the interaction between the passing body and gravitational field i.e. we can find that the curved space is just a mathematical interpretation of the nonlinear interaction. The problem (anomaly) in Astrophysics with unchanged orbital momentum of star although its radius of rotation about the galactic centre increases  (i.e. the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum respectively E+ = constant appear to be violated) is explained by Science by the existence of so called Black Energy, which in turn serve as proof of the existence of Dark Matter (in galaxies). Here we will briefly explain the anomaly by means of the Nonlinear Mechanics and PC⊥. We can split the action into two periods. During the first one, as stated in  located at some distance from the galactic centre star can move with increasing orbital speed (as a wheel) despite of increasing radius, if within the radius has more mass. This corresponds to the left (steep) parts of the graphs under the captions “”Expected” Galactic Rotation Speeds” and “Observed Rotation Curve-Surprise!”. The second period begins when the star is far enough away from the galactic center. Because gravitational force is inversely proportional to the squire of the distance, then with increasing radius gravitational influence of stars (masses) located on the other (opposite) side of the galactic center decreases, and therefore gravitational influence of stars (mass) located on the side of the star increases. Thus the center of gravity around which the star revolves moves from the center of the galaxy to a point placed somewhere between the galactic center and the star i.e. it moves perpendicular to the orbital velocity of the star. Then, moving away more and more the star continues to “pull” the centre of gravity relative its own mass (and the mass of the stars around it), i.e. to itself (imagine that in the lower example from Fig 7 centre O moves left and downwards). It is important to understand that because the line between the floating center of gravity and the star always remains perpendicular to the orbital velocity of the star then the centrifugal force acting along this line (radius of gravity) always remains perpendicular to the orbital momentum i.e. PC⊥ is in force same like in the examples from ,  и . So the orbital momentum (velocity) of the star always remains unchanged by the centrifugal force acting along the radius of gravity although the distance to the galactic center is growing, as evidenced by the right (horizontal) part of the graph under the caption “Observed
Rotation Curve-Surprise!”. The difference between the expected and observed orbital momentum with a given galactic radius is the proof that the Law of the Correct Distribution, the “E+ = constant”, the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum and the Kepler’s Laws are violated. From the point of view of the galactic center the energy responding to that difference is New Created Energy-the same one called a “black” one. The nonlinear explanation of the New Created Energy changes our understanding of Dark Energy and Dark Matter in galaxies. Probably s similar nonlinear mechanism is responsible for expanding and increasing rate of expansion of the Universe. 12. Second Historical Lesson The dogmatic policy stating that “We (the Science) will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning (everything that is against the well established Conservation Laws)” suggesting that Nature is a simple single-layer formation (because this understanding does not suppose any connection between the Conservation Laws) and everything has already been discovered is still active today. But instead of this Nature is a complicated multilayer system constituted by connected in system Conservation Laws Fig 8. Obviously the “We will no longer accept or deal…” taken as a well established method for “advanced” and “scientific” analysis by Science and around the Science organizations (like for example patent offices) has to be abandoned.
Fig. 8. Linear and Nonlinear Layers Millis  states that “If successful net-thrust tests are ever produced and if a genuine new effect is found, then science will have to be revised …”. Many other authors claim that the Classical Mechanics is (probably) incorrect, not exact (for example the Second Newtonian Law is approximate), not completed or not well developed. Some authors consider that (probably) the Classical Mechanics have to be rewritten suggesting alternatives. These opinions are wrong. The Second Historical Lesson proves that the
Classical Physics based on the Classical Mechanics can’t be wrong, not exact or not completed and therefore it can not be revised or rewritten. Classical Physics is perfect if we use it to build looms locomotives or rockets. But the Second Historical Lesson proves Classical Physics can be limited. Two Classical Limits are already known  stating that the competence of Classical Physics is limited by the conditions to deal with bodies in sizes much greater then atoms and moving with speeds much lower than the speed of light. Here is announced a Third Classical Limit defining that the Classical Physics is correct in Linear aspect only. Liner aspect is one of all possible ones only. One day all of the Classical Limits will be united. 13. Conclusion We enter into the Third Classical Limit stating that the Classical Physics is correct in Liner aspect only. References
 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. History of perpetual motion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines  Bojidar Djordjev. Free (Reactionless) Torque Generation - Or Free Propulsion Concept, SPESIF 2010, SAO, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AIPC.1208..324D  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Fictitious force; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force  Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Superposition principle; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle  Richard H. Enns, George C. McGuire. Nonlinear Physics with Mathematica for Scientists and Engineers. Birkhauser Boston; http://www.amazon.com/Nonlinear-Physics-Mathematica-Scientists-Engineers/dp/0817642234  Glenn Research Center. Newton’s Laws of motion; http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html  Isaac Newton. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233pdf.pdf  Lindholm A. and others. Rutherford Backscattering. Laboratory manual, Uppsala University, Department of Nuclear and Particle Physics; http://www.tsl.uu.se/~tord/KP/Rutherford.pdf  Provatidis C. G. Some issues on inertia propulsion mechanisms using two contra-rotating masses. “Teaching TMM” (Theory of Machines and Mechanisms) Magazine, Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Russia ISSN 2079-0201 volume 8 issue 15, 2010; http://tmm.spbstu.ru/15/Provatidis_15.pdf  Alan Freidman. An Introduction to Linear and Non Linear Systems And their Relation to Machinery Faults. DLI Engineering Corporation; http://www.dliengineering.com/downloads/linearity.pdf  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Logic Gate; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate  Nina Byers. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection between Symmetries and Conservation Laws; http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044  Alain J. Brizard. Introduction to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics. Department of Chemistry and Physics, Saint Michael’s College Colchester VT 05439; http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dleen/mathsoc/pdf/Notes.pdf [14 ] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Degrees of freedom (mechanics); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)  Linevitch E. Application of centrifugal forces like a source of power (in Russian); http://dlinevitch.narod.ru,  Ronald Pugh. Veljko Milkovic’s Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator- Efficiency Measurement; http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Merenja/Ronald_Pugh_Input-Output_Measurement_Mk5.pdf  Reidar Finsrud. Finsrud’s Perpetuum Mobile. Video; http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=553061720631716456#  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Bohr model; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Oxyhydrogen; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen  Ann Zabludoff. Fundamentals of Astronomy. Lecture 7, What is Dark Matter? University of Arizona; http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/a204/lecture7.html  Marc G. Millis. Responding to Mechanical Antigravity. NASA/TM-2006-214390; http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214390.pdf  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Modern Physics; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_physics http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AIPC.1208..324D
Mail History: It is intended to clear the question why the paper is loaded here:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:28:24 +0200 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Hello Dear All, Please see attached abstract titled “Topology of Change”. In my opinion the best possible participation would be in the 9th Symposium on New Frontiers in the Space Propulsion Sciences, A04.2. Unconventional Physical Principles and Gravitational Models. Best Regards Bojidar Djordjev On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:20:38 -0500 <email@example.com> wrote: Prof. Djordjev , Sorry for the late response. Your abstract has been given the log #003 as attached. Please read through the other attached documents and let us know you have done so. Do to our late start, we are preapproving your abstract for the A04.2 session. Please note that the description of A04.2 has change a bit - see attached call. However, we believe it still fits. You may begin your draft and summit to firstname.lastname@example.org by October 15. SPESIF On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:04:10 +0200 <email@example.com> wrote: Hi, Thanks for approving. As I guess I have to make out the forms after (if) the paper is accepted. I prefer to pay in pack then. Best Regards Bojidar Djordjev On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:04:27 +0200 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Hi Please see attached manuscript "Djordjev log #003". Bojidar Djordjev On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:21:00 -0500 <email@example.com> wrote: Authors, IASSPES will be pulling out of SPESIF2012. This includes my organizing and editorial roles. These roles are being turned over to Dr. Valone of the Integrity Research Institute, who is committed to seeing SPESIF2012 continue with ES publication. I give my full support to Dr. Valone, but regret I have to remove myself. Please resend your abstract or draft paper to Dr. Valone at: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com; phone: 301-220-0440) to ensure proper submittal under his guidance. Hopefully, I will be back for SPESIF2013, Glen A. Robertson On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:50:33 +0200 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Hi, Please see attached my draft manuscript “Topology of Change”, Djordjev log # 003 (as logged by Glen Robertson). Best Regards, Bojidar Djordjev On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:45:42 -0500
21 "Thomas Valone" <email@example.com> wrote: Dear SPESIF 2012 Presenters, As most of you know, IRI is the host of SPESIF this year and I have taken over as the Conference Coordinator for SPESIF 2012. We look forward to receiving your draft paper by Feb. 1, 2012, which has been moved forward to give everyone more time, with a final paper submission date of Feb. 15, 2012, so that we can confirm your speaker slot and prepare the Proceedings for publishing with Elsevier Science after the conference. Your registration fee (discounted to $250) and publication fee ($250) will be due at that time as well. The Register Now page will be updated shortly to accept these payments online in the next week or so at www.futurenergy.org <http://www.futurenergy.org/> , which will also reflect my college teacher policy of free admission for students. The SPESIF Draft Speaker Schedule (5-page) is now online at the above website but here is the link for your convenience http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Schedule.pdf. Please review it for your entry and let me know if there are any changes desired for whatever reason. The presentation time will be a maximum of 25 minutes, which includes Q&A. I have been in negotiations with the spinoff STAIF II group and offered to include any of their papers in our Proceedings for the same publication fee, since they have NO publisher for their conference proceedings and therefore no record of the presentations. We'll see if anything comes of my efforts to help them. We would like to add a Webcasting of the SPESIF event but have no experience in doing this. If anyone can offer any suggestions, that would be appreciated. I have Adobe Connect at the Patent Office where I work and that may be the solution, along with some website work for the public to pay and register. Also for special circumstances, there is no registration fee to be charged. These include: donor sponsors (we have a few already), authors of invited papers who will not be presenting, Plenary invited speakers, and any students with I.D. If you fall into any of these categories, make sure Jackie or I know about it. Lastly, we are planning to have a Banquet on Friday, March 2, 2012 with a keynote speaker. To keep the cost down (which is assessed "at cost"), we will be including a Cash Bar and therefore discounting the dinner tickets to only $50 each. This will be reflected on the Register Now page as well in the next week or so. Looking forward to your participation. Remember that PowerPoint slides are the standard. If you have any other medium, let me know so we can accommodate your needs. Best wishes for the New Year, Thomas Valone, PhD, PE SPESIF Coordinator, Tech and Pub Chair President Integrity Research Institute 5020 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite 209 Beltsville MD 20705 301-220-0440, 888-802-5243 FAX: 301-513-5728 www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:32:14 +0200 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Dear doctor Valone, Thanks for your letter. In my opinion I sent almost ready draft (“Topology of the Change” log # 003) to you on 24th of November 2011. I am not sure was it received and what is its status now. I would like to say that unfortunately I can’t present my paper personally at the SPESIF 2012. I guess that (in case the paper is accepted) my tax would be 250 $ and I must not prepare PowerPoint slides. Best Regards Bojidar Djordjev On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:10:03 -0500 "Thomas Valone" <email@example.com> wrote:
22 Dear Mr. Djordjev, Thank you for updating me on your status. Your details are correct and your paper will be considered as an invited paper and will be removed from the Schedule. May I suggest that your title might be more understandable if we take a couple concepts from the abstract? For example, how about a title such as, "Reactionless Motion from a Free Torque Generator" which would be exciting if your paper centers on that principle. The other possible title might be, "Nonlinear Dynamics Applied to a Free Torque Generator". We look forward to receiving your draft paper by the end of January if possible. Sincerely, Thomas Valone, PhD, PE SPESIF Coordinator President Integrity Research Institute 5020 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite 209 Beltsville MD 20705 301-220-0440, 888-802-5243 FAX: 301-513-5728 www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:46:47 +0200 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Dear doctor Valone, Thank you for your kind suggestions. I am almost ready to send the (next) draft to you with changed title: “From the Free Torque Generator to the fundaments of the Nonlinear Dynamics” instead of “Topology of Change” in the end of the month. In relation to you last letter from Jan 25th would you please send the new Template Guide in Microsoft Word format if possible. If additional charges are possible I would like to pay them together with the main one of $ 250 so please let me know now or after you receive the draft. Let me assure that in spite of that I will not participate to the conference personally I must register by marking the lowest “Publication fee for paper”. Best Regards Bojidar Djordjev On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:45:26 -0500 "Thomas Valone" <email@example.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Djordjev, No additional fees besides the publication and registration fees are due. If you are not attending personally and will not be sending a DVD or WMV file of your presentation, then no registration fee is due. I will send the template in Word by separate email. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas Valone, PhD, PE SPESIF Coordinator Integrity Research Institute 5020 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite209 Beltsville MD 20705 301-220-0440, 888-802-5243 On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:43:59 +0200 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Dear doctor Valone, Please see attached the draft manuscript “From the Free Torque Generator to the fundaments of the Nonlinear Dynamics” (the ex “Topology of the Change). The main changes are in the chapter “Energy”. Best Regards Bojidar Djordjev
23 -----Original Message----From: <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:46:16 To: Thomas Valone<firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: SPESIF 2012 paper Hello Dear Doctor Valone, I would like to ask you about the present situation of my paper "From the Free Torque Generator to the fundaments of the Nonlinear Dynamics" instead of "Topology of Change" I sent to you on the end of January. Probably I didn’t pay the tax after the conference because I expected some notes comments or conformation. Probably now it’s too late to pay the charge (if the paper is still accepted but not paid) and simply it will not be nor published. Please just let’s make it clear. Thank you. Best Regards Bojidar Djordjev On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:51:57 +0000 email@example.com wrote: I'm letting Jackie look into this. It“s too late for any more papers for this year. Tom Valone Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
The paper has been ignored without giving scientific arguments probably of some problems or reasons out of the paper. Possibly this can be connected to the fact that Valone attributes such inertial effects, in particle those generated by Thornson drive (see the movie “Free Energy-The Race to Zero Point”), to a fluctuation of the Zero Point. By the way Shipov determines same (similar) effects demonstrated by Tolchin’s inertioide as a demonstration of Torsion Fields (see http://blog.go-here.nl/5550 or http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7189261369558468761 Whatever it is, while expecting Jackie version, the paper has been uploaded. The headline is a compilation of the original name “Topology of the Change” and the modified Valone’s suggestion “From the Free Torque Generator to the fundaments of the Nonlinear Dynamics". The paper was uploaded in Elsevier Physics Pocedia format, the way it has been written but their logo has been removed.
It is simple: The Physics itself asserts that the Conservation Laws are in force for linear systems and inertial frames of reference but are not valid for nonlinear systems and non inertial frames of reference. The Physics itself predicts that the inviolable Conservation Laws can be violated and what is more indicates the field of violation. Why not investigate and exploit these opportunities? Why does Science anathematize these opportunities? Why does dogmatic resistance movement really exist? This is not science because science seeks truth and believes that truth is in experimental results. This is some kind of religion or ideology in which fait is more important then truth. On the other hand, this even is not a religion or ideology as the faithful believe in them in the whole genuine aspects. For example, imagine that the Pope and cardinals believe in God, but do not believe in the Holy Sacrament of the Jesus’ Resurrection. If the official science believes that the Conservation Laws are inviolable in linear systems and inertial frames of reference but does not believe in the Holy Sacrament of their violation in nonlinear systems and non inertial frames of reference, therefore it is not authentic religion but some kind of sectarianism. But if Science does not believe in itself how can believe in Science?