>From a static observer's POV, such a craft would be able to gain more KE than the PE it was provided with. So spacetime would have to be positively contributing energy, rather than the craft simply swimming in quantum goo.
On board the craft, CoE holds - the correct amount of work is being performed by the spent energy. One can only assume it is from this frame that Shawyer resolves the anomaly. He calculates the correct amount of thrust for the expended PE and simply ignores the anomaly from the non-inertial frame... On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:03:43 +0000: > Hi, > [snip] > >And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its > reference frame is? Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost > of acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which > a given force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure > "distance"? Relative to what, exactly? Without physical reaction mass, > such a system has its own unique reference frame - from within which, > energy may be conserved, but which from without, cannot be. > > > >I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, > and share the prevailing cautious optimism. But if they do work, then we > also have an energy anomaly. > [snip] > Is the energy anomaly resolved if it pushes against the mass of the > universe > (i.e. against space-time itself)? In which case it would indeed be just > like a > train on rails. In short, momentum is conserved, and all the energy ends > up with > the moving object. I suspect that this is the basis of Shawyers argument. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
