LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever..
What you're on about is varying net system momentum - ie. an N3 violation, linear or angular. Sure, if the motor's off then CoM / CoAM applies, and momentum's constant. I'm not sure anyone's suggested otherwise.. But a tethered EM drive is not producing counter-torque, so net angular momentum would not be constant... ...and if it were switched off mid-flight, and whatever it was tethered to suddenly released to move freely, the whole rotating system would fly off in a straight line, the two masses orbiting eachother as they fly thru space forever, their center of mass following a straight line. Which is not to suggest that reactionless torque can necessarilly be converted to reactionless linear force - although i've seen at least one suggestion that a pair of opposing-signed 'angons' nailed to the same base would generate a net linear force, forming a 'linon' - an intruiging thought nonetheless LOL.. The suggestion that linear can be converted to angular was yours, remember... you were saying that an EM drive tethered this way demonstrates a further conservation violation. I'm simply pointing out that inertia doesn't care what the direction of acceleration is, it's purely a function of how much mass has been accelerated / through how much space & time. Linear inertia is invariant due to mass constancy, while angular MoI is a variable function of mass times radius. But either way, the energy disunity is between the savings made on inputting momentum from within the accelerating frame, versus its usual KE value as measured from the external static frame, where N3 still applies - it's an excess of output work by the Higgs field, in relation to a deficit of input work on the part of our accelerating net system momentum. My point's simply that there's no logical paradox or supernatural invocations etc. - the resolutions are already implicit within the terms of the proposition. Any symmetry break implies an open thermodynamic system, and the source or sink is whatever's responsible for the passive force/time variation. This applies to all of them - overunity or underunity - all we're talking about is work performed by forces, or else its absence. The argument that a claimed non-classical thruster can't work because it would violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: > >> What's wrong with the centripetal tether example? >> > > With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't > change the angular momentum at all. The cross product of the linear > momentum of the object with its radius vector remains unchanged. Since > it's exerting no torque on the pivot, that must be true, classically. > > Meanwhile, the linear momentum of the tethered object is changing > constantly, as its velocity vector rotates. But it's also exerting a force > on the pivot point, as a result of which the linear momentum of whatever > the pivot is anchored to is also changing constantly, in such a way that > the sum of the two remains constant. (Energy, not so much, as it goes as > the square of the velocity and hence has zero derivative WRT velocity at > zero velocity.) > > There's no interconversion between linear and angular momentum. As I > already said, they're conserved separately. > >
