Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor

[Wesley Bruce]

ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no push if the plate is moving. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station! Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be found to be interacting with ZPE. snip The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a conclusion. (it allows FTL travel) cool where are the papers? Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose to believe in it that's your choice. >The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a >theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no >longer be in >resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and >hence lower force. Again, I am not talking about the EMdrive thing, particularly since very little hard data is known beyond the hearsay of the media, and we know how reliable a source they are. (Shawyer used a 700W magnetron or an 850W one, depending on who is reporting) >You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to >measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of >energy and >regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such >devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a >general observation and not true >in all cases. Well, personally I think they (reactionless propulsion systems) probably are possible as well, but I will predict that they will be found to obey energy conservation. It would be really nice if they *didn't*, but I think we are stuck with C-of-E. You think that why? Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to anything that breaks the conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur. There are plenty of situations where conservation of energy is not observed (both experiments and logic/math) leading to the question, why do you believe that energy can't be created? In most cases though I believe that the conservation of energy and equal and opposite and other laws, rules or constants are broken when the aether (space time) is effected in certain ways, when you do the right things to the medium in which all matter and energy floats the rules change. The real question, as with all science, is How do you design an experiment that invalidates the key hypothisis of C - of - E. What are your assumptions and if ZPE is real and usable as energy and reaction medium does that save C - of - E. Then we start all over again asking the question but now we must exclude ZPE experimentally. I see a long and fruit full life for the consevation of energy debate.