that is not what i mean.
if the wind made the ship sail at 10mph, the person
on the ship knows that neither the wind nor anything else
causes the land to move past him at 10mph.
harry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, September 26, 2008 6:44 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
>
> > but, wind patterns DO alter rotation, to a degree.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:> > But the pool players won't fall over simply because you
> choose
> > the ball
> > > as your frame of reference throughout the process. You have to
> > choose a
> > > frame a reference which is inertial (at rest or moving with
> constant> > velocity) throughout the entire process, i.e. before,
> during and
> > after> the collision.
> > >
> > > Anyway this is not really where I wanted to end up because I
> find
> > myself> in agreement with newtonian relativity. lol
> > >
> > > It is the ahistorical aspect of newtonian relativity which
> > bothers me.
> > > When I stand on shore and see a ship sail by, and I know that
> it was
> > > set in motion by the wind. Also a person on the ship knows
> > > the shore was not set in motion by the wind.
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:24 pm
> > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
> > >
> > >> if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that
> > >> would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no
> central> >> frame of refference, just what you choose. its not
> conceit, its
> > >> reality.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:>> >
> > >> > That is true but that is not what I mean.
> > >> >
> > >> > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the
> table and
> > >> the> earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1
> m/s wrt
> > >> to the
> > >> > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still
> > >> resting,> and that the table and the earth are now moving
> under you
> > >> at 1 m/s?
> > >> >
> > >> > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around
> the> >> table> would have been flung off their feet as the earth
> abruptly> >> accelerated> under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s.
> > >> >
> > >> > Harry
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm
> > >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
> > >> >
> > >> >> 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
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
