Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push the Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of a lot harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, however infintesimal, with each step.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> >> >> OrionWorks wrote: >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! >> > >> > See: >> > >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html >> > >> > >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, >> but I >> don't recognize it. >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker over >> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with >> confidence. >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. Surprising >> that they claim it will fly. >> >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, they say: >> >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed >> of light. >> >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must apply >> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed of light. >> In >> fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy *must* be >> carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else you'll >> end up with nonsensical results (just as they have apparently done >> here). >> In the FAQs they say: >> > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open >> > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of >> > reference. >> >> This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is based on >> what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's nothing >> magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any mystical >> significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly* the same concept >> exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics. >> >> When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table, the cue >> and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the ball is >> hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum in the >> *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum in the >> *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go? >> Answer: >> you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame, not a >> different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick which >> frame to use.) >> > > I have difficulty even accepting newtonian relativity. > Do you think by a flick of the wrist the mass of the table (and the > earth!) have gone from being at rest wrt to the cue ball, to being in > motion wrt to the cue ball? > > Harry > >
