Indeed, it would seem that the hypothesized preferred frame would act as the
"road". Or the "air". There is another word that could be used, it starts
with an "e" (or "ae") but I will remain a gentleman. :)
I'm not so much of a gentleman then.
> But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with
> their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the
> conservation of energy > be saved in this case?
I know little of ATG, other than they made an (inefficient) coil-gun. Did
they do something else? I will make no comment on Podkletnov, out of respect
for those who did work on that effect well within the grasp of the
everyday-man, and yet are unheard of now. As to Morton, do you refer to the
Van de Graff generator effect? I do not know enough details of these three
you have listed to speak as to their conservation of energy, nevertheless,
they probably do conserve. (Please note use of probably, in place of the
usual must)
All made very similar devices that created a gravity like beam.
> Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went
> through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.
Where can I find detailed plans so that I can build it in my laboratory?
If your serious there is enough detail, are you serious?
> Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the
> conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is
> a loss (or gain) in ZPE > somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude
> with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this
> could possibly occur and know it it should > even be a loss is crazy but
> if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's
> your best bet.
There is no need to invoke "ZPE" for which the evidence is sadly lacking in
it having anything to do with much of...well, anything. ZPE has become the
magickal elixir of everything it seems. I don't mean to sound harsh, but
really it is getting a bit crazy. Mark Twain must be laughing at us all, as
far as ZPE is concerned, thinking back on his statements regarding such
wholesale returns from such trivial investment of fact.
I'd agree with that, there is however ample evidence for energy from the aether.
> Particle accelerators aren't reactionless.
Neither are reactionless engines
eh? reactionless engines aren't reactionless engines?
, if they are pushing against a preferred
frame.
Where do you see evidence in the dean drive, in the EMDrive that it pushes off your stationary reference frame?
Also the thrust from a test reactionless motor would vary with the rotation of the earth likely as the absolute velocity of the device changed.
Obviously I have no problem with an aether but what kind of aether are you talking about,a universal stationary one? (I think you must)
> Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy
> needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that
> needed to get to 2
> meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second
> because it is reactionless. (or kinda)
No it is not reactionless
Of course it isn't, didn't say it was.
, photons* have momentum. But 300MW/Newton does, as
they say, sorta suck.
> The point is that a flashlight will yield constant acceleration at a given
> power input.
The point is that no matter how you work it out, a photon rocket (or a
neutrino rocket, or any of the conjectured "dark energy" rockets) will not
violate C-of-E
Of course not they aren't reactionless.
. As far as we know, at least; to my knowledge they have not
been tested, owing to the dreadful inefficiency.
>> Are you by chance equating:
>> A. converting 0.5kW for 10 seconds to thrust, and then for an additional
>> 10
>> seconds, as being the same as,
>> B. blasting a rocket for 10 seconds, and then for 10 more seconds?
> Very much so yes except I have explained why with rockets it isn't really
> the same as the energy in the exhaust is lowered.
I suppose that we must disagree then on what we expect of a reactionless
engine. By the way, please don't take any of this personally, I'm actually
having a damn good time being able to discuss something other than politics
on here, this is a really nice change!
> Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose
> to believe in it that's your choice.
A lot of things don't make sense at first glance, but they do later.
> You think that why?
> Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but
> that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to
> anything that breaks the > conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean
> there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur.
True, it doesn't mean it is impossible. But as far as we know it *is*
impossible
No, as far as we know we don't know and as I stated in another thread can never fully know one way or the other, IMO a reactionless engine would prove it to my satisfaction but not to yours I suspect even if it showed to be 'over unity'.
. Just because someone hands us (they haven't yet, at least
clearly) a reactionless motor, does not mean that we must discard C-of-E. I
think the rule of science fiction authors is a good one to go by here: don't
ask the reader to believe more than 1 impossible thing at a time.
That has to do with the human mind and nothing to do with reality.
> There are plenty of situations where conservation of energy is not
> observed (both experiments and logic/math) leading to the question, why do
> you believe that
> energy can't be created?
Can you please elaborate? I am curious now.
Time delay can be shown to yield both free energy and reactionless propulsion.
For propulsion imagine I have 2 coils, I put a current through one creating a magnetic field that expands at the speed of light through space.
Then I put a current through the second one and immediately if feels a force because it is immersed in the magnetic field of the first coil.
The magnetic field from the second coil also expands at the speed of light but can not instantaneously effect the first coil as it is at a distance so while the second coil has a force placed on it the first coil doesn't. (yet)
If we now turn coil one off before the magnetic wave from two gets to it we have reactionless thrust.
Free energy can be achieved by using time delay in what is known as the waterhammer effect.
To best see this effect in a thought experiment it is best to make the fluid absurdly ideal with no care as to how practical it may be.
Take a long straight pipe with a fluid that has almost no mass but incredible resistance to compression.
The energy in a compressed fluid depends on the force over a certain distance (acting on a piston) and we are going to maximize the force by making this a very reluctantly compressed fluid much like water.
Now we accelerate this fluid to high speed in the pipe, if we now place an obstruction at it's leading edge it stops and a pressure wave of compressed fluid stops further motion but this pressure wave can only travel so fast and the trailing edge keeps sailing towards the blockage for a small but very real time.
Now if this fluid is appreciably light we may conclude it has an insignificant amount of kinetic energy in it despite perhaps significant velocity, and while the compression created merely by inertia would be a pittance a huge level of compression and hence stored energy must occur due to the delay.
In practice it dodn't matter if the fluid is heavy as the inertia the fluid does posses will just force it to compress further, the point is the time delay must exist and there is no way this can't turn into free energy.
This effect has been measured in the real world to be overunity as is the electrical analogue.
> In most cases though I believe that the conservation of energy and equal
> and opposite and other laws, rules or constants are broken when the aether
> (space time) > is effected in certain ways, when you do the right things
> to the medium in which all matter and energy floats the rules change.
You believe in the existence of the "ether"?
Aether
Why then the opposition to a
preferred frame of reference? (Which is precisely what the "ether" is)
Because I believe we drag the aether with us if we are much larger than a particle in an accelerator.
