In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +0000: Hi, [snip] >And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference >frame is? Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of >acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a >given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"? >Relative to what, exactly? Without physical reaction mass, such a system has >its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, >but which from without, cannot be. > >I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and >share the prevailing cautious optimism. But if they do work, then we also >have an energy anomaly. [snip] Is the energy anomaly resolved if it pushes against the mass of the universe (i.e. against space-time itself)? In which case it would indeed be just like a train on rails. In short, momentum is conserved, and all the energy ends up with the moving object. I suspect that this is the basis of Shawyers argument.
Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
