subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:They call me a moron. A reply."

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:44:46 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left 
then they would not carry away any momentum or energy.   Normal drives require 
that an amount of momentum that equals that which is imparted into the ship be 
ejected in an opposite direction.

If the particles are given kinetic energy, then annihilate, the annihilation
energy will be larger than the energy required to create them (the excess being
the kinetic energy they received). So what happens to the excess? Does it appear
as EM radiation, or does it modify the zero point field (ZPF) locally?
This may result in momentum being transferred to the ZPF  i.e. the substratum of
the universe, which being vastly more massive than the craft itself means that
the craft itself effectively ends up with all of the energy.
This is basically what I was trying to get at. The converted energy may end up
as kinetic energy of the craft itself.

As to a traveler not being able to tell that he is going faster, that is clearly
not so. He can measure the change in red/blue shift of the stars. That will even
tell him what direction he is traveling in. In simple terms he uses the same
method we do when traveling in a car, he looks out of the window.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:06:09 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I agree Axil.  And those particles that are produced are then given the 
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship.  Also, they must 
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time 
interval.  The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no 
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into 
the ship.  That is where I can not agree.

Dave
Perhaps, because they are only virtual particles, they are still connected to
the ZPF, and hence are effectively infinitely massive. That would mean that the
energy imparted to the particles would approach zero, while still allowing
transfer of momentum.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-26 Thread David Roberson


One issue that tends to support the thought that the internal energy can vanish 
without a visible trace is that the man onboard the ship can detect that he is 
undergoing acceleration while the drive is active.  If it is eventually 
confirmed that a force arises from the activation of the drive then energy will 
be imparted onto the ship according to his measurements.
 
Even though all velocities are considered relative, a change in velocity can 
usually be determined.  That is reason to sustain hope for reactionless drives 
becoming a reality.  It remains to be proven that the force obtained will be 
practical.  So far there is reason to suspect that it does not exit at all.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:06:09 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I agree Axil.  And those particles that are produced are then given the 
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship.  Also, they must 
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time 
interval.  The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no 
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into 
the 
ship.  That is where I can not agree.

Dave
Perhaps, because they are only virtual particles, they are still connected to
the ZPF, and hence are effectively infinitely massive. That would mean that the
energy imparted to the particles would approach zero, while still allowing
transfer of momentum.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:08:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and 
the guy within.  First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended 
length of time.  Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing 
the drive.  After all of his mechanizations the final result is that he comes 
to rest at the original location and at the original velocity in space.

If such a drive exists, then the answer is obvious. Returning to his original
velocity does not cost extra energy. Quite the reverse, the energy originally
expended to create kinetic energy of the vehicle is now returned, as the
vehicles kinetic energy is converted back into potential energy, IOW he uses the
vehicles kinetic energy to recharge his batteries, so that once back at his
original position and velocity, he also has the same mass that he started out
with. (The concept is analogous to regenerative braking).
Of course in practice, recharging the batteries will not be 100% efficient.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-26 Thread David Roberson


Here I have to disagree.  It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy 
during both accelerations.  If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will 
just vanish as far as any observer can determine.  The guy on the ship is 
satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to accelerate 
regardless of the direction of that movement.
 
This strange state of affairs is what makes me suspect of the entire concept.  
The mass just seems to vanish from the universe.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 5:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:08:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and 
the guy within.  First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended 
length of time.  Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing 
the drive.  After all of his mechanizations the final result is that he comes 
to 
rest at the original location and at the original velocity in space.

If such a drive exists, then the answer is obvious. Returning to his original
velocity does not cost extra energy. Quite the reverse, the energy originally
expended to create kinetic energy of the vehicle is now returned, as the
vehicles kinetic energy is converted back into potential energy, IOW he uses the
vehicles kinetic energy to recharge his batteries, so that once back at his
original position and velocity, he also has the same mass that he started out
with. (The concept is analogous to regenerative braking).
Of course in practice, recharging the batteries will not be 100% efficient.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:43:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

Here I have to disagree.  It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy 
during both accelerations.  If that energy goes into the zpe field then it 
will just vanish as far as any observer can determine.  The guy on the ship is 
satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to accelerate 
regardless of the direction of that movement.
 
This strange state of affairs is what makes me suspect of the entire concept.  
The mass just seems to vanish from the universe.

If that were the case, then I would be suspicious of it too. That's why I think
that if such a drive works at all, then the energy ends up as kinetic energy of
the craft. 
As for the regenerative braking, consider this. It works with electric cars,
because they can exchange momentum with the Earth through contact with the road.
It is impossible for a normal rocket because they have no road with which to
exchange momentum. However if this drive provides the capability of exchanging
momentum with the ZPF, then the vehicle effectively has a road available to it
while traveling through space, so regenerative breaking becomes a possibility.

In the case of Sawyer's drive, it might manifest as virtual microwave photons
becoming real photons in the drive, as it slows down. If these microwaves are
then damped (i.e. rectified into DC and the energy stored), then they might
constantly be replenished as the vehicle slows, thus converting the kinetic
energy of the vehicle back into stored energy.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-26 Thread David Roberson


It would be refreshing to find that the energy is returned, but I harbor no 
expectation of that occurring.  Consider that what we consider acceleration is 
exactly the same as deceleration as far as a ship is concerned.  In either 
situation the ship is changing velocity as a function of time due to operation 
of the drive.
 
 I visualize the ship as being at rest just before each acceleration takes 
place.  A force is applied by the reactionless drive at that time which leads 
to an acceleration along the line of the applied force.  It does not make any 
difference what direction that force takes when you consider that the drive 
begins to burn up our mass at the time it causes the acceleration.  There is no 
mechanism available to capture the kinetic energy that is assumed to exist.

If it so happens that microwave radiation or any other form of radiation is 
emitted from the vacuum as a result of the drive then there may be no need to 
consider it reactionless.  In that case the spaceman can determine the location 
of his missing mass.

Please understand that I am skeptical that a reactionless drive is actually 
possible.  The only reason for this line of speculation is to consider the 
consequences in case an actual force is proven to exist when one of these 
devices is operated.  That has not been firmly established.

Do you believe that a reactionless drive is possible?  I suspect that you are 
kidding.

Dave
 
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 26, 2014 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:43:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

Here I have to disagree.  It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy 
during both accelerations.  If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will 
just vanish as far as any observer can determine.  The guy on the ship is 
satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to accelerate 
regardless of the direction of that movement.
 
This strange state of affairs is what makes me suspect of the entire concept.  
The mass just seems to vanish from the universe.

If that were the case, then I would be suspicious of it too. That's why I think
that if such a drive works at all, then the energy ends up as kinetic energy of
the craft. 
As for the regenerative braking, consider this. It works with electric cars,
because they can exchange momentum with the Earth through contact with the road.
It is impossible for a normal rocket because they have no road with which to
exchange momentum. However if this drive provides the capability of exchanging
momentum with the ZPF, then the vehicle effectively has a road available to it
while traveling through space, so regenerative breaking becomes a possibility.

In the case of Sawyer's drive, it might manifest as virtual microwave photons
becoming real photons in the drive, as it slows down. If these microwaves are
then damped (i.e. rectified into DC and the energy stored), then they might
constantly be replenished as the vehicle slows, thus converting the kinetic
energy of the vehicle back into stored energy.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-25 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty
 space.  What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy?  What
 is the mechanism that makes this happen?


In the case of an incoming high-energy photon, the pair is produced as a
result of the interaction of the photon with an electromagnetic field.  The
momentum of the incoming photon is conserved in the momentum of the
outgoing electron and positron.


 Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
 energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
 particles?


I assume it does.  Do you have a reference (other than Hotson) that says
that the rest mass does not include the energy of the intrinsic angular
momentum?  Since the spin of the electron and positron is presumably
intrinsic, I gather they would not be an electron and a positron without
it.  Their spin is +/- 1/2, which gives them fermi statistics.  If they had
a different spin, e.g. integer spin, they would have different
characteristics and be other than an electron and a positron.  (Note
there's also the analogous case of the muon and antimuon, etc.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

If the spaceman can detect the microwave photons exiting the cavity with lots 
of momentum the drive would not be considered reactionless.  A true 
reactionless drive does not exhaust any significant form of matter or energy 
that can be detected by the guy when it operates.   Of course heat can be 
radiated from the ship provided it does not contain enough momentum to supply 
the forward directed force.  That is the definition as I understand it.  A 
normal type of propulsion system always emits some form of exhaust that carries 
plenty of momentum. 

The momentum gained by the ship is exactly balanced by the momentum of the 
exiting exhaust in a standard rocket engine.  Newton's law about every reaction 
having an equal and opposite reaction is what we have observed for all rocket 
engines.  Leave out the equal and opposite reaction and you have a reactionless 
design.

Thus far I have seen no evidence that a reactionless engine is possible 
according to the above definition.  Could it be that some of you guys do not 
define a reactionless drive in the same manner as I?  From some of the 
responses I am receiving that appears to be the case.  If true, then how would 
you describe the operation of one and how is that different than what we 
normally expect?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him 
which contains all of the converted energy.




If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of physics 
for a moment and arrange for tracer photons, perhaps he could see microwave 
photons exiting the cavity of the drive in the opposite direction, accounting 
for the anomalous thrust. (Perhaps I'm missing your point.)


Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


 Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to 
contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different 
rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed.

Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass when 
compressed.  E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass due to 
the added energy.

The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great deal of 
time.  Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try.  If your example depends 
upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it does not function 
the way you suspect.

I  am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in an 
increase in the rest mass of the storage device.  For example, heating a frying 
pan makes it more massive.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering, 
there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a net 
thrust.


However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately 
replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible due to 
subtle factors being potentially at work.


Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being 
mathematically proven or disproven.


Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are rotating 
so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass.


Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving to the 
rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once they are not 
rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship.


Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you can gain 
net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of the ship and 
one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly.


So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what is 
stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance to 
acceleration is unchanged?


Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to 
contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different 
rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed.


So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also then turn 
that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a proton-proton 
collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons.


So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we 
can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to 
a stop.


Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed?





On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave 
source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that point.  The 
problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for 
its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into 
energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism.

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in 
space.  Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving.  He 
will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself.  He sees that his ships 
mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went.  With a normal drive 
the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all 
of the converted energy.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.




On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious 
problems to offer their input.



One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the 
recent news is the EmDrive.  That one involves the generation of microwaves and 
their reflection in a cavity.  It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa 
and the inventor believe that it works as advertised.  But if it does, note 
that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to 
which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread John Berry

Ok, so a charged battery is more massive than a discharged battery...

A bowling ball on a shelf is more massive than the same bowling ball on the
ground (greater potential energy).

A spring compressed or stretched is more massive than one under no tension.

I was wondering as I typed the previous email if this would be the reply,
it isn't an angle of e=mc2 I have heard of but it sounds plausible that
energy has mass.

This creates a problem though, the mass of everything in the universe is
then logically effected by all other masses, electric and magnetic fields
and other potential sources of energy!

So a new galaxy is born and suddenly all mass in the universe has too.
Not sure that makes sense, but it does make for some interesting scifi!

John

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

  Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not
 seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a
 different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring
 uncompressed.

 Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass when
 compressed.  E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass due
 to the added energy.

 The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great
 deal of time.  Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try.  If your
 example depends upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it
 does not function the way you suspect.

 I  am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in an
 increase in the rest mass of the storage device.  For example, heating a
 frying pan makes it more massive.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular
 engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear
 to create a net thrust.

  However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately
 replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible
 due to subtle factors being potentially at work.

  Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being
 mathematically proven or disproven.

  Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are
 rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass.

  Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving
 to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once
 they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship.

  Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you
 can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of
 the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly.

  So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what
 is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance
 to acceleration is unchanged?

  Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem
 to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a
 different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring
 uncompressed.

  So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also
 then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a
 proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons.

  So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will
 then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when
 it comes to a stop.

  Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed?


 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the
 microwave source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that
 point.  The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having
 anything to show for its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship
 can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for
 the drive mechanism.

 After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to
 rest in space.  Even though the new velocity is different than the old one
 before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he
 is moving.  He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself.  He
 sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it
 went.  With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving
 relative to him which contains all of the converted energy.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

On

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread John Berry

Just to clarify that further, if the mass of something depended on it's
energy, and if that includes potential energy then anything that provides
potential energy to other objects increases the potential of every object
that could fall into this potential field at any at any point.

And since some potential fields can be established and later removed such
as a magnetic field then the mass of energything in the universe that could
be effected by a magnetic field would be increased the moment it is turned
on, and not when turned off.

And if you had a gravitational source that could be established and
disestablished this should increase the potential energy and hence mass of
everything that is effected by gravity, including light (in as much as
light has mass of a sorts).

Rather than magnetisms limited range of effects.

John






On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ok, so a charged battery is more massive than a discharged battery...

 A bowling ball on a shelf is more massive than the same bowling ball on
 the ground (greater potential energy).

 A spring compressed or stretched is more massive than one under no tension.

 I was wondering as I typed the previous email if this would be the reply,
 it isn't an angle of e=mc2 I have heard of but it sounds plausible that
 energy has mass.

 This creates a problem though, the mass of everything in the universe is
 then logically effected by all other masses, electric and magnetic fields
 and other potential sources of energy!

 So a new galaxy is born and suddenly all mass in the universe has too.
 Not sure that makes sense, but it does make for some interesting scifi!

 John

 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

  Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not
 seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a
 different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring
 uncompressed.

 Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass
 when compressed.  E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass
 due to the added energy.

 The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great
 deal of time.  Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try.  If your
 example depends upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it
 does not function the way you suspect.

 I  am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in
 an increase in the rest mass of the storage device.  For example, heating a
 frying pan makes it more massive.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular
 engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear
 to create a net thrust.

  However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be
 accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be
 possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work.

  Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being
 mathematically proven or disproven.

  Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are
 rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass.

  Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving
 to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once
 they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship.

  Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you
 can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of
 the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly.

  So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what
 is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance
 to acceleration is unchanged?

  Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not
 seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a
 different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring
 uncompressed.

  So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also
 then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a
 proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons.

  So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will
 then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when
 it comes to a stop.

  Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed?


 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the
 microwave source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that
 point.  The

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Bob, well said, I would only add that this is also not a matter of ejecting 
mass but energy consumed to directionalize an existing media like an airplane 
or boat prop re-directionalize air or water - it is giving the spacecraft 
linkage to the ether against which it can simply push. Although this is easier 
to see with hydrogen particles I think Shawyer is somehow employing the same 
principle with just microwaves. IMHO the hydrogen when fractionalized or IRH is 
aging at a different rate than normal 3D hydrogen, many recent threads seem to 
indicate that SPP is the linkage to these regions where the isotropy is broken 
and virtual particle pressure is fractured into a tapestry described by the ( 
inverse spacing between lattice geometries) ^4 through which hydrogen still 
migrates according to the random motion of gas law, The SPP linkage is allowing 
us to push against a special type of relativistic hydrogen - a type that 
doesn't shoot past our stationary frame at high fractions of C but rather 
modifies the space between these plates into a gravitational hill/warp where 
virtual particles are compressed instead of stretched. Mass is not lost because 
nature will float physical matter back to our plane as the local frame for 
these hydrogen are still subject to random gas motion that migrates it back up 
thru the tapestry from the more robust areas against which the linkage finds 
purchase. Although the Rossi and Mills scheme utilize the random motion of gas 
to bootstrap their process I actually suspect it will be easier to demonstrate 
inertia modification by employing SPP as stims, I just don't think anyone has 
looked for it yet / Difiore et all were seeking an effect from passive 
arrangement of cavities and don't believe they ever tried to stimulate the 
effect.
Fran

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Dave--

If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it 
is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results.  The 
standard conversion of energy normally  happens in a measurable 3-D space the 
space man knows.  The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to 
the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not 
observable yet.

You must think outside the 3-D box.

Engineers do this better than scientists.  Note Bob Higgins recent comment 
attributed to a mentor of his.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Robersonmailto:dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

In reply to  David Roberson's

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its 
below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative 
energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual 
particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation--a 
term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to 
the negative energy sea.  

(Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and 
the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated 
with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of 
the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or  loss 
of charge respectively.)   

The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur 
because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving 
away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space 
based on  observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his 
initial position.  This would be the reaction less drive device in his space 
ship.  

Bob Cook


- Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  I agree Axil.  And those particles that are produced are then given the 
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship.  Also, they must 
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time 
interval.  The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no 
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into 
the ship.  That is where I can not agree.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being 
produced in the vacuum by EMF.


  On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Yes Axil.  The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem 
dissolves.  This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive 
believe is occurring from what I have determined.  They suggest that there is 
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum.  Why call it a 
reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being 
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.


On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

  That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of 
the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It 
might not be easy, but it can be done.

  The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is 
assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the 
ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is 
constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel 
the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

  If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass 
of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the 
reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift 
in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no 
kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It just 
vanished, which makes no sense.

  With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of 
the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

  In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

  How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a 
reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have 
atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is 
used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear 
process.

  Dave

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


David--

You stated:

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest 
in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. 

Yes he can determine he is moving.  All he needs to do is look out the window 
and see that he  is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he 
started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave 
source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that point.  The 
problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for 
its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into 
energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism.

  After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in 
space.  Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving.  He 
will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself.  He sees that his ships 
mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went.  With a normal drive 
the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all 
of the converted energy.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the 
obvious problems to offer their input.


  One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the 
recent news is the EmDrive.  That one involves the generation of microwaves and 
their reflection in a cavity.  It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa 
and the inventor believe that it works as advertised.  But if it does, note 
that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to 
which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply.


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread Roarty, Francis X

There is ambiguity here based upon a 3D vs 4D perspective but maybe some of 
these patents regarding remediation of radioactive gas in a catalyst could shed 
some light. I would posit that this reaction is actually based upon 
relativistic effects on radioactive gas when local vacuum wavelengths are 
compressed by Casimir geometry. I think ZPE / HUP keeps physical/ persistent 
matter floating in our 3d ant farm like a canoe stuck in a water fall and 
matter pushed away  is  pushed back by the stream or like atmosphere being 
forever resupplied in front of an aircraft prop, my gut feeling is the more 
fractionalized/ condensed hydrogen becomes the harder you can push against the 
ether. I don't think the hydrogen is lost but will slowly be pushed back into 
the waterfall where persistent matter is trapped to make room for more 
hydrogen to gain entry [passive exploitation like Rossi/Mills] - forcing a 
circulation like Modell Haisch describe in their patent may be a better way to 
exploit this effect.
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its 
below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative 
energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual 
particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation--a 
term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to 
the negative energy sea.

(Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and 
the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated 
with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of 
the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or  loss 
of charge respectively.)

The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur 
because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving 
away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space 
based on  observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his 
initial position.  This would be the reaction less drive device in his space 
ship.

Bob Cook


- Original Message -
From: David Robersonmailto:dlrober...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I agree Axil.  And those particles that are produced are then given the 
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship.  Also, they must 
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time 
interval.  The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no 
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into 
the ship.  That is where I can not agree.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being 
produced in the vacuum by EMF.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson 
dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Axil.  The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem 
dissolves.  This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive 
believe is occurring from what I have determined.  They suggest that there is 
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum.  Why call it a 
reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being 
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson 
dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Bob, consider the following sequence of maneuvers taken by the spaceship and 
the guy within.  First, he decided to move in one direction for an extended 
length of time.  Then he decides to return to his starting point by reversing 
the drive.  After all of his mechanizations the final result is that he comes 
to rest at the original location and at the original velocity in space.

All of this can be done at low velocities so that relativistic effects have an 
insignificant contribution to the results.  As a matter of fact, the magnitude 
of force so far generated according to reactionless drive proponents would 
clearly fall into this category.   Under these conditions what would the guy on 
the ship observe?

He has never been able to detect or measure any form of energy or mass actually 
being exhausted by his ship since it is invisible to him.  He has effectively 
moved nowhere as compared to his original velocity and position.  But, for some 
strange reason the energy required to power the drive has vanished and he can 
not find it onboard his ship nor in the exhaust which is by definition non 
existent.

I can see no way to justify this result unless the mass of an object can vary 
over time.  If you carry this process to the extreme the ship will simply loose 
most of its mass with nothing to indicate where it went.  Keep in mind that a 
normal type of spaceship drive does not suffer this consequence.  Even in the 
case where the motion is reversed, all of the mass of the spaceship can be 
accounted for.  The original mass has been redistributed about the local region 
of space and contains kinetic energy due to its motion relative to the original 
ship.

In one case the numbers add up, in the other case they do not.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



David--
 
If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its 
below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be negative 
energy momentum--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual 
particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation--a 
term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to 
the negative energy sea.  
 
(Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and 
the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated 
with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of 
the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or  loss 
of charge respectively.)   
 
The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur 
because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving 
away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space 
based on  observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his 
initial position.  This would be the reaction less drive device in his space 
ship.  
 
Bob Cook
 
 
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A   reply.
  


I agree   Axil.  And those particles that are produced are then given the 
momentum   required to balance out that obtained by the ship.  Also, they must  
 remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time   
interval.  The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their   are no 
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted   into 
the ship.  That is where I can not agree.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  
  
There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be   being 
produced in the vacuum by EMF.
  

  
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
  
Yes Axil.  The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem   
  dissolves.  This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless 
drive believe is occurring from what I have determined.  They suggest that 
there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum.  Why call 
it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being 
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.



On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the ship 
at other objects.  That is why I proposed the recent posting where he returns 
to the original location and velocity.  That procedure counters the thought 
that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of the 
reactionless drive.  Special Relativity is generally considered capable of 
countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in 
space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card.

The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the 
reactionless drive.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



 
David--
 
You stated:
 
After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest 
in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. 
 
Yes he can determine he is moving.  All he needs to do is look out the window 
and see that he  is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he 
started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed.  
 
Bob
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A   reply.
  


The fact that   energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave 
source is   certainly possible.  No one will ague against that point.  The   
problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show   
for its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted   into 
energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive   mechanism.

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and   comes to rest in 
space.  Even though the new velocity is different than   the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not   determine that he is moving.  
He will not have any kinetic energy   relative to himself.  He sees that his 
ships mass has depleted but has   nothing to show where it went.  With a normal 
drive the guy can see the   exhaust that is moving relative to him which 
contains all of the converted   energy.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To:   vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02   am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  
  
  
  
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
  

  
I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the 
obvious problems to offer their input.
  



  
One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am   aware of being in the 
recent news is the EmDrive.  That one involves the   generation of microwaves 
and their reflection in a cavity.  It's not   clear whether anyone other than 
Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as   advertised.  But if it does, 
note that energy must be expended to   generate the microwaves, e.g., by a 
battery, to which the usual E=mc^2   conversion will apply.
  


  
Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of 
energy transferred to the negative energy sea. 

Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot 
properly account.  He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. 

His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real 
particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy,  which he does  
not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles.  The rest 
mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular 
momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac 
sea.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the 
ship at other objects.  That is why I proposed the recent posting where he 
returns to the original location and velocity.  That procedure counters the 
thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of 
the reactionless drive.  Special Relativity is generally considered capable of 
countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in 
space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card.

  The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the 
reactionless drive.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



  David--

  You stated:

  After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest 
in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. 

  Yes he can determine he is moving.  All he needs to do is look out the window 
and see that he  is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he 
started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed.  

  Bob
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the 
microwave source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that point.  
The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show 
for its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into 
energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism.

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest 
in space.  Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before 
the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving. 
 He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself.  He sees that his 
ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went.  With a normal 
drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains 
all of the converted energy.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


  I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the 
obvious problems to offer their input.


One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in 
the recent news is the EmDrive.  That one involves the generation of microwaves 
and their reflection in a cavity.  It's not clear whether anyone other than 
Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised.  But if it does, 
note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a 
battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the 
missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship.  But now that two 
directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity 
we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea.  How 
do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy?

I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the 
best way to explain this concept.   We operate a device onboard our ship for a 
long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space.   We have 
absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of 
it.  That is a long stretch.

A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active 
is also confused.  He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the 
conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream.  But then, it 
returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains potentially much less 
mass than before.  He must be totally baffled.  This is especially difficult 
for him to understand when everything would add up correctly had the ship used 
a normal drive by ejecting exhaust.

There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as possible so 
far.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



David--
 
The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of 
energy transferred to the negative energy sea. 
 
Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot 
properly account.  He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. 
 
His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real 
particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy,  which he does  
not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles.  The rest 
mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular 
momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac 
sea.  
 
Bob
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A   reply.
  


Yes, he can   determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the 
ship at other   objects.  That is why I proposed the recent posting where he 
returns to   the original location and velocity.  That procedure counters the 
thought   that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of 
the   reactionless drive.  Special Relativity is generally considered capable   
of countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in   
space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that   card.

The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after   using the 
reactionless drive.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  
  
  
 
  
David--
  
 
  
You stated:
  
 
  
After the drive is shut down the ship   stops accelerating and comes to rest 
in space. Even though the new velocity is   different than the old one before 
the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship   can not determine that he is 
moving. 
  
 
  
Yes he can determine he is moving.  All he   needs to do is look out the window 
and see that he  is moving relative to   objects that were fixed before he 
started his travel and are assumed to have   remained fixed.  
  
 
  
Bob
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the 
microwave source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that 
point.  The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having 
anything to show for its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship 
can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for 
the drive mechanism.

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest 
in space.  Even though the new velocity is different than the old one 
before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he 
is moving.  He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself.  He 
sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it 
went.  With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving 
relative to him which contains all of the converted energy.

Dave










-Original

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread John Berry

David, I take it you now accept that energy can be stored without
increasing mass?

I can see you have avoided tackling the subject so I assume this is an
admission that you can't.

This then means we can produce a reactionless drive by changing between
forms of energy that do and do not contribute mass.

As for the microwave cavity, if you put microwaves in a cavity, how long
after you stop pumping in microwaves do they stop bouncing around inside?
Real world, which means an imperfect cavity.
So the production of thrust seems to occur as a bonus. We can't really
observe that the energy loss is greater because thrust is produced.

Additionally the argument energy could come to nothing it maybe in a sense
correct, but only because a true reactionless drive by default will destroy
the conservation of energy by allowing both the creation and destruction of
energy. Creation because reaching double the speed with the same energy
cost is a violation as it implies eventually gaining more from acceleration
that the energy cost.
And indeed because opposing kinetic energy results in a net loss of energy.

But an assumption about the perfection of the CoE should not be assumed
since that is just a theory and one that is based on the assumption that
the fabric of space does not change. But if this device is pushing on the
virtual particles of space or maybe the Higgs Boson or space time it's self
then energy would not necessarily be conserved.

Here is an article on the non-conservation of energy:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Please remember that the conservation of energy is just an idea based on
symmetry.

And I would personally argue that treating energy like a supernatural force
makes no sense and that any example of energy being converted and conserved
looks much more like creation and destruction of energy happening in
perfect balance.

And that giving energy some life, some existence besides the mechanics of
the situation is mysticism.

John

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of
 the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship.  But now that two
 directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and
 velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative
 energy sea.  How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the
 energy?

 I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is
 the best way to explain this concept.   We operate a device onboard our
 ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space.
 We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can
 locate any of it.  That is a long stretch.

 A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was
 active is also confused.  He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while
 violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream.
 But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains
 potentially much less mass than before.  He must be totally baffled.  This
 is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up
 correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust.

 There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as
 possible so far.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  David--

 The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount
 of energy transferred to the negative energy sea.

 Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot
 properly account.  He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to
 him.

 His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of
 real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy,  which
 he does  not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real
 particles.  The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of
 particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the
 negative sea--the Dirac sea.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside
 the ship at other objects.  That is why I proposed the recent posting where
 he returns to the original location and velocity.  That procedure counters
 the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to
 usage of the reactionless drive.  Special Relativity is generally
 considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular
 velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

John, I suspect that you are reading my lack of answer the wrong way.  I have 
been quite busy writing a post about how to test an ECAT like device during a 
lot of that time.

Pushing a mass against gravity is a way to store potential energy.  Without 
going into details I suspect that energy must indeed be stored as mass in this 
case.  Perhaps later it will become clear as to how that takes place and how it 
can be measured.

Perhaps it would be better for you to come up with a practical method of 
storing energy that can be applied to a reactionless drive and then someone can 
show you how you are making a mistake.

Actually I believe it would be better for you to research the concept and 
answer that question for yourself.  Take the spring for example.  Choose a 
closed system that includes the spring and a battery and motor.   Energy stored 
within the battery can be used to drive the motor that can then have gears that 
compress the spring.  If the spring did not store energy in the form of mass 
then that system would loose mass as the battery is discharged.  A nuclear 
battery or reactor could perform the same function.

So, that is an example of a stand alone system similar to those that you are 
considering which would loose mass as a result of internal operations.   A 
reactionless drive is not required in this case to lead into a unrealistic 
situation.

I imagine any of the ideas that you are proposing can be subjected to a similar 
thought process and proven wrong.  You can determine that without my 
involvement. 

The Q of a microwave cavity determines how long it takes for the internal 
reflections to die down.  This is a well understood process.
 
Dave


 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 2:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


David, I take it you now accept that energy can be stored without increasing 
mass?


I can see you have avoided tackling the subject so I assume this is an 
admission that you can't.


This then means we can produce a reactionless drive by changing between forms 
of energy that do and do not contribute mass.


As for the microwave cavity, if you put microwaves in a cavity, how long after 
you stop pumping in microwaves do they stop bouncing around inside?  Real 
world, which means an imperfect cavity.
So the production of thrust seems to occur as a bonus. We can't really observe 
that the energy loss is greater because thrust is produced.


Additionally the argument energy could come to nothing it maybe in a sense 
correct, but only because a true reactionless drive by default will destroy the 
conservation of energy by allowing both the creation and destruction of energy. 
Creation because reaching double the speed with the same energy cost is a 
violation as it implies eventually gaining more from acceleration that the 
energy cost.
And indeed because opposing kinetic energy results in a net loss of energy.


But an assumption about the perfection of the CoE should not be assumed since 
that is just a theory and one that is based on the assumption that the fabric 
of space does not change. But if this device is pushing on the virtual 
particles of space or maybe the Higgs Boson or space time it's self then energy 
would not necessarily be conserved.


Here is an article on the non-conservation of energy:


http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/


Please remember that the conservation of energy is just an idea based on 
symmetry.


And I would personally argue that treating energy like a supernatural force 
makes no sense and that any example of energy being converted and conserved 
looks much more like creation and destruction of energy happening in perfect 
balance.


And that giving energy some life, some existence besides the mechanics of the 
situation is mysticism.


John 



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the 
missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship.  But now that two 
directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity 
we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea.  How 
do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy?

I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the 
best way to explain this concept.   We operate a device onboard our ship for a 
long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space.   We have 
absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of 
it.  That is a long stretch.

A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was active 
is also confused.  He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while violating the 
conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream.  But then, it 
returns to his side with no

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each 
direction--going out and coming back.  He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, 
but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the 
space craft in going and coming back.

The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the 
same coming back.  He also does not see any mass being expelled by the 
spaceship.  However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a 
decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that 
he observed.   Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not 
realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative 
energy and momentum to the Dirac sea.  Total energy and momentum was conserved 
in the transfer.  

Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving 
spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and 
related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound 
like Rossi--

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the 
missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship.  But now that two 
directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity 
we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea.  How 
do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy?

  I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the 
best way to explain this concept.   We operate a device onboard our ship for a 
long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space.   We have 
absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any of 
it.  That is a long stretch.

  A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was 
active is also confused.  He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while 
violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream.  But 
then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains potentially 
much less mass than before.  He must be totally baffled.  This is especially 
difficult for him to understand when everything would add up correctly had the 
ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust.

  There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as possible 
so far.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  David--

  The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount of 
energy transferred to the negative energy sea. 

  Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot 
properly account.  He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to him. 

  His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of real 
particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy,  which he does  
not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real particles.  The rest 
mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of particles, the angular 
momentum of the universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac 
sea.  

  Bob
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside the 
ship at other objects.  That is why I proposed the recent posting where he 
returns to the original location and velocity.  That procedure counters the 
thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to usage of 
the reactionless drive.  Special Relativity is generally considered capable of 
countering the natural feeling that a particular velocity is important in 
space, but with zero velocity change there is no need to play that card.

The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the 
reactionless drive.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



David--

You stated:

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to 
rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one 
before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is 
moving. 

Yes he can determine he is moving.  All he needs to do is look out the 
window and see that he  is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere 
without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to 
operate.  It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating 
which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere.  That source could be 
onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar.

With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink 
for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea.  So far evidence for 
some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some 
researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives.  It 
is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so 
tiny.  If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without 
any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid.  Of course all of 
the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside 
influence.

It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner 
suggested.  Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a 
strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac 
sea may not be that sink.

Dave



 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



David--
 
In your going and coming trip:
 
The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each 
direction--going out and coming back.  He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, 
but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the 
space craft in going and coming back.
 
The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the 
same coming back.  He also does not see any mass being expelled by the 
spaceship.  However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a 
decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that 
he observed.   Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not 
realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative 
energy and momentum to the Dirac sea.  Total energy and momentum was conserved 
in the transfer.  
 
Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving 
spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and 
related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound 
like Rossi--
 
Bob
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A   reply.
  


When the ship   was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the 
missing mass   ends up as kinetic energy of the ship.  But now that two 
directions are   used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity 
we decide that   all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea.  
How do we   reconcile these two very different sinks for the energy?

I seldom like   to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is the 
best way to   explain this concept.   We operate a device onboard our ship for 
a   long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space.   We   have 
absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can locate any   of 
it.  That is a long stretch.

A second observer that was at rest   next to the ship before the drive was 
active is also confused.  He sees   the ship gaining kinetic energy while 
violating the conservation of momentum   by demonstrating no exhaust stream.  
But then, it returns to his side   with no motion remaining and contains 
potentially much less mass than   before.  He must be totally baffled.  This is 
especially difficult   for him to understand when everything would add up 
correctly had the ship used   a normal drive by ejecting exhaust.

There are too many inconsistencies   for me to accept the concept as possible 
so far.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  
  
  
David--
  
 
  
The guy need only account for the loss of mass   energy by adding the amount of 
energy transferred to the negative energy   sea. 
  
 
  
Of course, if he does not consider a negative   energy sea exists, he cannot 
properly account.  He is stuck   with an observation that makes no sense to 
him. 
  
 
  
His reaction less drive converted what was   originally linear momentum of real 
particles to the intrinsic property of   angular momentum energy,  which he   
does  not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real   particles.  
The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of   particles, the

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty 
space.  What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy?  What is the 
mechanism that makes this happen?

The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are 
produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that 
comes from some source--empty space or some other place.  Where does the energy 
associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy 
associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles?  

One possible  answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not 
convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos 
and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with  negative energy.   

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear 
momentum involving the Dirac sea.  I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of 
energy.  

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to 
the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be 
obtained at the following link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion 
of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron.

Bob


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere 
without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to 
operate.  It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating 
which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere.  That source could be 
onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar.

  With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink 
for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea.  So far evidence for 
some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some 
researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives.  It 
is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so 
tiny.  If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without 
any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid.  Of course all of 
the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside 
influence.

  It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner 
suggested.  Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a 
strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac 
sea may not be that sink.

  Dave









  -Original Message-
  From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  David--

  In your going and coming trip:

  The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each 
direction--going out and coming back.  He notices a loss of mass to somewhere, 
but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the 
space craft in going and coming back.

  The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the 
same coming back.  He also does not see any mass being expelled by the 
spaceship.  However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a 
decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that 
he observed.   Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not 
realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative 
energy and momentum to the Dirac sea.  Total energy and momentum was conserved 
in the transfer.  

  Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving 
spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and 
related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound 
like Rossi--

  Bob
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the 
missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship.  But now that two 
directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velocity 
we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative energy sea.  How 
do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Pair production is fairly well established from what I have read.  In that case 
energy is converted into mass but I do not recall any mention of the real pair 
appearing without some type of input.

In particle accelerators mass is created in the form of new particles from the 
energy contained within the original interacting particles.

Both of these cases convert one form of energy into another but do not create 
anything out of the vacuum without that initial energy.  Here I equate energy 
with mass when I use the term energy.

You need to ask someone else about the angular momentum questions you have 
since I have never looked into that issue.  By the way, if I do not respond to 
your posting or some part of the same it does not carry any implications of my 
acceptance to what you are stating.   I just may not be inclined to comment.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



David--
 
Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty 
space.  What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy?  What is the 
mechanism that makes this happen?
 
The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are 
produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that 
comes from some source--empty space or some other place.  Where does the energy 
associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from?
 
Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy 
associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles?  
 
One possible  answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not 
convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos 
and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with  negative energy.   
 
I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear 
momentum involving the Dirac sea.  I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of 
energy.  
 
D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to 
the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be 
obtained at the following link:
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU
 
Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion 
of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron.
 
Bob
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A   reply.
  


I suppose that   if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere 
without leaving a   trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to 
operate.  It is   easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is 
accelerating which takes a   force and therefore energy from somewhere.  That 
source could be onboard   the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or 
something   similar.

With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove   that the sink 
for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea.  So   far evidence for 
some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force   that some 
researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless   drives.  It 
is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus   far measured is so 
tiny.  If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space   can accelerate without 
any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be   valid.  Of course all of 
the energy must be obtained from within the   vehicle and not due to outside 
influence.

It remains a question as to   whether or not mass can vanish in the manner 
suggested.  Locate a   spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make 
a strong case for some   energy sink that can be pushed against although the 
Dirac sea may not be that   sink.

Dave


  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  
  
  
David--
  
 
  
In your going and coming trip:
  
 
  
The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and   slowing down in each 
direction--going out and coming back.  He notices a   loss of mass to 
somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can   measure that 
has left the space craft in going and coming back.
  
 
  
The stationary observer sees a speeding up and   slowing down going out and the 
same coming back.  He also does not see   any mass being expelled by the 
spaceship.  However he weighs the ship   when it has returned and

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread Axil Axil

please see

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

*The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production*

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty
space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is
the mechanism that makes this happen?

The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that
are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the
electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place.
Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of
those new particles come from?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
particles?

One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum
is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is
coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with
negative energy.

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to
linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed
conservation of energy.

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion
to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can
be obtained at the following link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDUQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdfei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABAusg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasAbvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the
conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and
positron.

Bob

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere
without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to
operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is
accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That
source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or
something similar.

With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the
sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far
evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force
that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless
drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far
measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can
accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be
valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the
vehicle and not due to outside influence.

It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner
suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you
make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although
the Dirac sea may not be that sink.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each
direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to
somewhere, but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that
has left the space craft in going and coming back.

The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and
the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the
spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a
decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down
that he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do
not realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as
negative energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum
was conserved in the transfer.

Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by
conserving spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear
momentum and related energy states whether those states are negative or
positive--I sound like Rossi--

Bob

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of
the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread Axil Axil

more...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965.pdf

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

please see

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

*The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production*

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
wrote:

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from
empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy?
What is the mechanism that makes this happen?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
particles?

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to
linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed
conservation of energy.

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion
to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can
be obtained at the following link:

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the
conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and
positron.

Bob

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into
somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of
this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he
is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere.
That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor
or something similar.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

Bob

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

When the ship was moving

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

That is a great link. Axil thanks.

The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their
intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair
electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty great
up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite spins. Many
electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric fields.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

please see

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty
space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the
mechanism that makes this happen?

The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that
are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron
that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the
energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles
come from?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
particles?

One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is
not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to
epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy.

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to
linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed
conservation of energy.

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion
to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be
obtained at the following link:

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the
conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and
positron.

Bob

- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere
without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to
operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating
which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be
onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar.

With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the
sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence
for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some
researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It
is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so
tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without
any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of
the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside
influence.

It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner
suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a
strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac
sea may not be that sink.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each
direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere,
but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the
space craft in going and coming back.

The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and
the same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the
spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a
decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that
he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not
realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-24 Thread Axil Axil

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf

A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV)
will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a
nutshell.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

That is a great link. Axil thanks.

The voltage requirement may be reached in SPP's as they collapse and their
intense magnetic field changes rapidly. Has the voltage between two pair
electrons or protons been calculated. The electric field must be pretty
great up close to a pair of electrons held together by their opposite
spins. Many electrons in a SPP vortex may even cause greater electric
fields.

Bob

- Original Message -
*From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

please see

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

*The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production*

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
wrote:

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from
empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy?
What is the mechanism that makes this happen?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
particles?

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to
linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed
conservation of energy.

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion
to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can
be obtained at the following link:

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the
conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and
positron.

Bob

- Original Message -
*From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into
somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of
this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he
is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere.
That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor
or something similar.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Axil--

You mean we just stumbled on it? Inside the nutshell that is?

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf

A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV)
will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a
nutshell.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

That is a great link. Axil thanks.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

please see

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
wrote:

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from
empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What
is the mechanism that makes this happen?

The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron
that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the
electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where
does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new
particles come from?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
particles?

One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular
momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is
coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with
negative energy.

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to
linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed
conservation of energy.

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its
realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that
can be obtained at the following link:

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the
conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and
positron.

Bob

- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into
somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this
sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is
accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That
source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or
something similar.

With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that
the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far
evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that
some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives.
It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is
so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate
without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course
all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to
outside influence.

It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the
manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you
make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the
Dirac sea may not be that sink.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

The spaceman uses energy by speeding

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I've thought enough--I'm headed for bed--:)
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf

A EMF field that equals or exceeds the mass equivalent of a meson (140 MeV)
will produce mesons from the vacuum. This is the cold fusion mechanism in a
nutshell.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

That is a great link. Axil thanks.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

please see

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~dunne/dunne_schwinger.html

The Schwinger effect: non-perturbative vacuum pair production

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
wrote:

David--

Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from
empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What
is the mechanism that makes this happen?

The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron
that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the
electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where
does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new
particles come from?

Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the
energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those
particles?

One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular
momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is
coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with
negative energy.

I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to
linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed
conservation of energy.

D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its
realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that
can be obtained at the following link:

Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the
conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and
positron.

Bob

- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into
somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this
sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is
accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That
source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or
something similar.

With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that
the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far
evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that
some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives.
It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is
so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate
without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course
all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to
outside influence.

It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the
manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you
make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the
Dirac sea may not be that sink.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

David--

In your going and coming trip:

The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread mixent

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to 
energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in 
other ways.  So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure 
this combination yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy 
would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread mixent

In reply to  H Veeder's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:30:46 -0500:
Hi Harry,

I think there might be some nuclear/chemical effects at very close range, but
that's just a guess. The range would be determined by the lifetime of the
virtual particles.

[snip]
What I was wondering is if the reaction of the quantum vacuum has other
observable effects besides the thrust.
For example, the thrust generated by a standard engine results in an
exhaust which can be seen to disturb other bodies nearby.
If one can push against the quantum vacuum will this disturb other bodies
as well?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination 
yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
change 
if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Dave I do not understand what you are talking about.

But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while
not violating the conservation of momentum or energy.

Take a spring, compress it.
As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction,
or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting.

The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust.

This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy
storage could be used instead).

Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you?


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of
 the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.
 It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass
 of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that 
 the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
 the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.
 So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this 
 combination
 yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
 change
 if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
 

 It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
 fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at 
 all.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread Axil Axil

No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of
 the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.
 It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass
 of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that 
 the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
 the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.
 So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this 
 combination
 yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
 change
 if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
 

 It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
 fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at 
 all.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Ok, just a thought...

But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment...
If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless.

Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields?
Could they react as other materials do?

Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic field
carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability of free
space).

I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of reasoning,
but I bet there are some.

John






On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
 produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.

 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of
 the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.
 It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass
 of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that 
 the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
 the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.
 So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this 
 combination
 yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
 change
 if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
 

 It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in 
 the
 fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at 
 all.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread Axil Axil

If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into
electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to
detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear
decay of radioactive isotopes.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ok, just a thought...

 But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment...
 If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless.

 Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields?
 Could they react as other materials do?

 Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic
 field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability
 of free space).

 I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of
 reasoning, but I bet there are some.

 John






 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
 produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.

 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all
 of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new
 velocity.  It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass
 of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that 
 the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant 
 to the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to 
 energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.
 So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this 
 combination
 yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
 change
 if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
 

 It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in 
 the
 fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at 
 all.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread Bob Cook

Dave--

If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it 
is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results.  The 
standard conversion of energy normally  happens in a measurable 3-D space the 
space man knows.  The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to 
the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not 
observable yet.  

You must think outside the 3-D box.

Engineers do this better than scientists.  Note Bob Higgins recent comment 
attributed to a mentor of his.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


  That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

  The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed 
to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

  If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of 
the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the 
reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift 
in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no 
kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It just 
vanished, which makes no sense.

  With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

  In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

  How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination 
yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
change 
if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Wait, virtual particle don't decay though, they annihilate don't they?  (I
am unsure what the significant difference might be)

And annihilation of virtual particles don't create any energy since there
was none...

But this makes me wonder, what about particles that there isn't an
antimatter version of?

I am not well versed on particle physics, but I can only think of the
photon.  Is there an anti-higgs?

But while there isn't an anti-photon, photons do kinda cancel in an EMF
sense, this can be seen whe one looks at the EMF around a receiving
antenna, it creates an opposing EMF.

But this reminds me of a thought I have often had, we assume that light
absorbed (to our senses) is light somehow stopped, but could not not be
seen as the superimposition of an opposite photon, both of which then carry
on to the ends of the universe unimpeded as they interact with nothing as
they equal zero?

But still existing, just as the net zero magnetic flux around a torrid
transformer can induce a voltage.
Sure, this might not be able to make it's presence felt in the same way,
but logically it would still exist as I guess information.

John


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 If the created particles were mesons, these particles would decay into
 electrons and neutrinos. I suspect that an experiment can be prepared to
 detect those electrons. Also the mesons would effect the rate of nuclear
 decay of radioactive isotopes.

 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Ok, just a thought...

 But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment...
 If it were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless.

 Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields?
 Could they react as other materials do?

 Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic
 field carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability
 of free space).

 I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of
 reasoning, but I bet there are some.

 John






 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
 produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.

 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all
 of the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new
 velocity.  It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the
 mass of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation 
 that the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant 
 to the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to 
 energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

No problem with that concept John.  Pressing the spring initially adds the 
energy that is latter released.  Notice that the light energy carries mass 
which of course has momentum.  The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is 
matched by that of the light.  That is a normal propulsion system.

A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in some 
direction without any type of ejection mass.  That is my objection.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


Dave I do not understand what you are talking about.


But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while not 
violating the conservation of momentum or energy.


Take a spring, compress it.
As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction, or 
electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting.


The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust.


This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy storage 
could be used instead).


Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you?





On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination 
yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
change 
if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the
initial frame will see the exhaust.

I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum
and energy.

But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes
etc...

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 No problem with that concept John.  Pressing the spring initially adds
 the energy that is latter released.  Notice that the light energy carries
 mass which of course has momentum.  The momentum that is imparted upon the
 ship is matched by that of the light.  That is a normal propulsion system.

 A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in
 some direction without any type of ejection mass.  That is my objection.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  Dave I do not understand what you are talking about.

  But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum
 while not violating the conservation of momentum or energy.

  Take a spring, compress it.
 As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either
 friction, or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting.

  The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real
 thrust.

  This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy
 storage could be used instead).

  Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you?


 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of
 the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.
 It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass
 of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

   In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that 
 the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
 the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.
 So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this 
 combination
 yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
 change
 if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
 

 It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in 
 the
 fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at 
 all.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

Yes Axil.  The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem 
dissolves.  This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive 
believe is occurring from what I have determined.  They suggest that there is 
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum.  Why call it a 
reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being 
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.


On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination 
yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
change 
if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

If the particles appear and then annihilate each other so that nothing is left 
then they would not carry away any momentum or energy.   Normal drives require 
that an amount of momentum that equals that which is imparted into the ship be 
ejected in an opposite direction.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


Ok, just a thought...


But if there are particles popping into (semi)existence for a moment...   If it 
were full existence their annihilation would not be so eventless.


Then could these particles be effected by magnetic and electric fields?
Could they react as other materials do?


Could they actually act as at least part of the electric and magnetic field 
carrying capacity of the vacuum? (the permittivity and permeability of free 
space).


I am unsure what interesting implications come from this line of reasoning, but 
I bet there are some.


John 













On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being 
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.



On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination 
yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
change 
if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

OK Bob, I tend to think outside of the box quite often, but sometimes that does 
not get me to where I would like to go.  I would love to find that a 
reactionless drive is possible, but so far the evidence is strongly against 
that concept.

You must become the spaceman inside his ship in order to see where the problem 
exists.  If the mass and energy leaving the ship is not visible or measurable 
by the guy then he will become quite upset to see his ship vaporizing into 
nothing as the drive operates.  As far as he can determine his ship is at rest 
in space once the drive is shut down.   He can then take an inventory of the 
mass of his machine and wonders where most of it went, particularly if a large 
amount of it is converted into energy used to power the drive.

With a normal drive every morsel of the original mass and energy can be 
located.  Actually, I believe that the center of mass of the original ship 
remains in the same location and has the same magnitude after the normal drive 
is activated.  The same is not true for a reactionless drive.

Each external observer will determine that the center of mass of a normal ship 
remains at a constant location.  This is true regardless of the final velocity 
of the ship relative to those guys.   This is certainly true for very slow 
moving ships such as we would measure under non relativistic situations being 
presently discussed.  The conservation of momentum ensures that this occurs.

I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious 
problems to offer their input.  Start by explaining how the spaceman could 
accept the change in mass of his ship without any measurable emissions into 
space remembering that velocity is entirely relative.  In this case I am 
playing the part of the skeptic but will make every effort to prove myself 
wrong.  I honestly want to be wrong about this type of system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



Dave--
 
If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it 
is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results.  The 
standard conversion of energy normally  happens in a measurable 3-D space the 
space man knows.  The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to 
the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not 
observable yet.  
 
You must think outside the 3-D box.
 
Engineers do this better than scientists.  Note Bob Higgins recent comment 
attributed to a mentor of his.  
 
Bob
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A   reply.
  


That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the   
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It   
might not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship   can not find the lost mass that is assumed 
to be converted into energy to   generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship 
will only see that the mass   of his ship is depleted since his velocity is 
constant after the drive is cut   off as far as he knows.  Of course he will 
feel the acceleration as the   drive is powered, but he has no way to determine 
his velocity relative to the   universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity 
is relative to the   observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90%   of the mass of 
the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate   the 
reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman   begins to 
drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still   in space and 
has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass   end up?  It just 
vanished, which makes no sense.

With a normal   ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has   been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic   waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the 
same as before the   drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what 
has been   demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost   without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing   is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult   to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to   the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the   mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually   disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the   drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear   process.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread Axil Axil

There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being
produced in the vacuum by EMF.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Yes Axil.  The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
 dissolves.  This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless
 drive believe is occurring from what I have determined.  They suggest that
 there is nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum.  Why call
 it a reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?

 Dave

  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

  No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
 produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.

 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of
 the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.
 It might not be easy, but it can be done.

 The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is
 assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard
 the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his
 velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of
 course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no
 way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that
 occurs.   Velocity is relative to the observer.

 If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass
 of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the
 reactionless drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to
 drift in space.  As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and
 has no kinetic energy.  But where did all that original mass end up?  It
 just vanished, which makes no sense.

 With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of
 the mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of
 electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the
 same as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is
 what has been demonstrated so far in real life.

 In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its
 existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as
 expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are
 possible.

 How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a
 reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have
 atoms of fuel actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction
 is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the
 nuclear process.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

   In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that 
 the
 mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
 the
 local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy
 which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other 
 ways.
 So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this 
 combination
 yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
 change
 if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
 

 It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in 
 the
 fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at 
 all.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I am sorry that my thoughts are not being clearly put into writing.  Perhaps as 
the subject is further discussed you can determine exactly what I am thinking 
and accept or reject my ideas. 

My tendency is to choose an observation frame that simplifies the understanding 
of a problem.  In this particular case that frame appears to be attached to the 
ship undergoing acceleration due to the drive.  Measurements by the guy onboard 
strongly reject the consequences that result from the use of a reactionless 
drive. 

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the 
initial frame will see the exhaust.


I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum and 
energy.


But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes etc...



On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

No problem with that concept John.  Pressing the spring initially adds the 
energy that is latter released.  Notice that the light energy carries mass 
which of course has momentum.  The momentum that is imparted upon the ship is 
matched by that of the light.  That is a normal propulsion system.

A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in some 
direction without any type of ejection mass.  That is my objection.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


Dave I do not understand what you are talking about.


But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum while not 
violating the conservation of momentum or energy.


Take a spring, compress it.
As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either friction, or 
electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting.


The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real thrust.


This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy storage 
could be used instead).


Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you?





On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the
 obvious problems to offer their input.


One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in
the recent news is the EmDrive.  That one involves the generation of
microwaves and their reflection in a cavity.  It's not clear whether anyone
other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised.  But
if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves,
e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

I agree Axil.  And those particles that are produced are then given the 
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship.  Also, they must 
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time 
interval.  The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no 
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into 
the ship.  That is where I can not agree.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being 
produced in the vacuum by EMF.


On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Yes Axil.  The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem 
dissolves.  This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive 
believe is occurring from what I have determined.  They suggest that there is 
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum.  Why call it a 
reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.


No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being 
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.


On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

That is the point Robin.  In the case of a car you can find where all of the 
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity.  It might 
not be easy, but it can be done.

The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to 
be converted into energy to generate thrust.  A person onboard the ship will 
only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his velocity is constant 
after the drive is cut off as far as he knows.  Of course he will feel the 
acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no way to determine his 
velocity relative to the universe before or after that occurs.   Velocity is 
relative to the observer.

If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass of the 
original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the reactionless 
drive.   Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to drift in space.  As 
far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and has no kinetic energy.  
But where did all that original mass end up?  It just vanished, which makes no 
sense.

With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of the 
mass that has been ejected can be located.  Whether in the form of 
electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the same 
as before the drive is activated.  This makes complete sense and is what has 
been demonstrated so far in real life.

In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its 
existence.  In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as 
expected.  I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are 
possible.

How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a reactionless 
drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located?  Have atoms of fuel 
actually disappeared?  Even if some form of nuclear reaction is used to power 
the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the nuclear process.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the 
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to 
the 
local observer at least.  I include the mass that can be attributed to energy 
which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in other ways. 
 
So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure this combination 
yields the same result.  As you know, the total mass-energy would have to 
change 
if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.


It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in the
fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at all.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the microwave 
source is certainly possible.  No one will ague against that point.  The 
problem is that this energy can be depleted without having anything to show for 
its loss.  If taken to the extreme most of the ship can be converted into 
energy by some nuclear process to supply power for the drive mechanism.

After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest in 
space.  Even though the new velocity is different than the old one before the 
drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he is moving.  He 
will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself.  He sees that his ships 
mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it went.  With a normal drive 
the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all 
of the converted energy.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.



On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious 
problems to offer their input.



One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the 
recent news is the EmDrive.  That one involves the generation of microwaves and 
their reflection in a cavity.  It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa 
and the inventor believe that it works as advertised.  But if it does, note 
that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to 
which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.

2014-11-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to
 him which contains all of the converted energy.


If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of
physics for a moment and arrange for tracer photons, perhaps he could see
microwave photons exiting the cavity of the drive in the opposite
direction, accounting for the anomalous thrust. (Perhaps I'm missing your
point.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.