On 9/17/06, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks?
I also agree that they are real though I see no evidence they work like the drive in question, they appear to work by rotating the aether.
Thanks.
Exactly my point.
It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming you accept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you must explain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied.
If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however I guess you have good company with Kyle.
If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration because it would violate the conservation of energy then they don't have a real idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with their philosophical beliefs.
What are you talking about?
The beam effected everything in it's path as far as I know.
It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything else is not in the beams path.
It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work.
I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how what your saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve energy.
You shouldn't need the math for this!
It's so basic it hurts.
You run the flashlight for 2 minutes it has double the velocity it would have running it for one minute.
The only way you can view this as untrue is if you decide that the reaction from emitting a photon is dependant on your velocity relative to your reference frame and that is working with facts not in evidence.
True
Constant to the photon rocket ships power indicators.
In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37
+1200:
Hi,
[snip]
>> >No Kyle, your mistaken.
>>
>> You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?
>
>
>Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts against
space itself via the interaction that EM radiation has with the
"substrate". This implies that it is reacting against the entire
mass of the universe, and hence conservation of momentum implies
that all energy expended ends up as kinetic energy of the device
and heat (as opposed to being shared with kinetic energy of
exhausted mass as is the case with conventional rockets).
BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass
change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside
down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement
error caused by using an electronic balance.
But what if it was just thrust from heated air + leaks?
Besides which, I know for a fact the UFOs are real, and hence that
some sort of "reactionless/anti-gravity" drive is possible. This
is the best candidate technology I have seen to date.
I also agree that they are real though I see no evidence they work like the drive in question, they appear to work by rotating the aether.
[snip]
>Your idea of it having a 'road' or universal stationary reference frame on
>which performance is based is positively kookie.
..a nice scientific rebuttal.
Thanks.
:>
[snip]
>
>Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where
>my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much
>what was stated in the article,
Correct.
>There was no indication they used it as a
>way to save the conservation of energy
Not necessary, since they didn't claim it was being violated in
the first place.
Exactly my point.
Only you are making that claim, and so far you
haven't backed it up.
It doesn't need to be backed up as it is elementary logic, assuming you accept that double the velocity is quadruple the energy then you must explain why it won't accelerate in a linear fashion with the power supplied.
If you can stomach the idea of a Machian universal reference frame however I guess you have good company with Kyle.
>and if they did then we can discount
>it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for
>believing in the effect.
The logic of this escapes me. Perhaps I am just dense.
If they based the theory that it doesn't do so well with acceleration because it would violate the conservation of energy then they don't have a real idea as to how it should stop working just feel it should to agree with their philosophical beliefs.
>
>But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with
>their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation
>of energy be saved in this case?
>
>Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went
>through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.
...but it was able to decide which things it affected and which it
didn't?
What are you talking about?
The beam effected everything in it's path as far as I know.
I.e. it didn't effect the things it passed through, but
did effect test objects placed in it's path???????
(Had the latter not been true, then how was it detected at all?)
It moved evything it's path, it is measureb by the fact that everything else is not in the beams path.
It worked just like you'd expect a parallel 'beam' of gravity to work.
>
>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,
No, we just assume that the gain of kinetic energy is supplied by
the microwave power supply. Which is where I started out.
Think of it like this. The moment it starts to move, the Doppler
shift is going to slightly reduce the amplitude of the standing
wave. By adding more microwave power, the amplitude is restored,
ensuring that the force is maintained and enabling the motion to
continue. If you wish, you can think of it as infinitely many
infinitely small steps.
I think I understand what your saying i don't however have a clue how what your saying here backs up your idea that a reactionless drive would conserve energy.
[snip]
>But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame.
Such a drive is paradoxical, and therefore doesn't exist. (Since
it has no frame of reference, no energy at all would be needed to
accelerate it to infinite velocity - one simply "declares" it to
be traveling at the desired speed :).
In short everything in the universe has a frame of reference,
specifically, at least the frame of reference of the observer.
I submit that the frame of reference to use in the case of this
drive is that of the microwave background.
>
>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)
Please show the math for this.
You shouldn't need the math for this!
It's so basic it hurts.
You run the flashlight for 2 minutes it has double the velocity it would have running it for one minute.
The only way you can view this as untrue is if you decide that the reaction from emitting a photon is dependant on your velocity relative to your reference frame and that is working with facts not in evidence.
>
>Now it's ok because the energy in the photons relative to your starting and
>final reference frames is less the faster you go, the one during the first
>second have a higher frequency than the ones emitted during the last second.
>(same freq. at the time of course but lower at the end of the 10 second run)
This will depend on the frame of reference of the observer of the
photons.
True
>
>The point is that a flashlight will yield constant acceleration at a given
>power input.
Power input also depends on one's frame of reference.
Constant to the photon rocket ships power indicators.
