Harry Veeder wrote: > > ----- 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. >
Exactly. The classical law of inertia simply do not apply well to non classical mechanical phenomena. So you'll never satisfactorily explain things like the emdrive in that paradigm. When we'll start to consider light as an elastic phenomenom we'll be able to make progress in theories in these areas. > Unfortunately, when you try to explain reactionless acceleration from inside > the paradigm of mechanics > you end up with theoretical nonsense. > And this says a lot about the strong resistance to accept these kind of phenomena and devices, doesn't it? Best regards, Mauro
