----- Original Message ----
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 11:18:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Reactionless" propulsion
>
> At 03:14 PM 11/10/2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
> > Wheteher or not his theory is coherent and consistent, maybe what he
> discovered is that the pattern doesn't have to exert a pressure to cause an
> acceleration. That would make it a truly reactionless drive.
>
> What has he "discovered"? He doesn't show enough of an effect to be called
> that.
> He *suspects* is more like it.
Its is too bad he hasn't made a smaller device. He might find a bigger effect
with less power.
> "To cause an acceleration" means to "exert a force." Pressure is the term he
> uses, force per unit area.
Only a force can cause an acceleration if the law of inertia is absolutely
correct in all situations.
However, I think it is dangerous to restrict the meaning of cause to force
unless you want to limit all speculation and explanation of motion to the
tenets of the mechanical philosophy/paradigm.
Unfortunately, when you try to explain reactionless acceleration from inside
the paradigm of mechanics
you end up with theoretical nonsense.
Harry
__________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot
with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail
today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
