Fran, it is OK to disagree with me and I have been wrong more than enough times
to justify your feelings. There may well be some process such as you are
considering and hopefully one day it will be brought into the light.
My consideration of reactionless drives is based upon the observation that the
mass of atoms, molecules, and all other forms of matter remain a constant to
the local observer at least. I include the mass that can be attributed to
energy which is either emitted by some action of the matter or absorbed in
other ways. So far, every attempt that I have made to calculate or measure
this combination yields the same result. As you know, the total mass-energy
would have to change if the system were to be subject to a reactionless drive.
If somehow it is found to be possible to make a drive of this nature without
having to expend energy then at least the local observer might be satisfied.
The remote observers, which would include everyone moving at a different speed
relative to the spaceship would each determine a different answer for the net
energy expended. If the system follows the conservation of momentum and
conservation of mass-energy then all of the various observers would reach the
same conclusion. This is a powerful suggestion that those two laws apply.
Picture a spaceman onboard the ship that tallies the mass of his vehicle before
and after activation of the reactionless drive. If net energy were required in
order to change the velocity of the ship then he will find that his machine has
lost mass. This would be sufficient reason to be concerned since eventually
his ship can loose most of the mass and have nothing to show for the energy
that it once contained. The guy in the normal ship readily calculates that his
lost mass has been ejected mainly out the rear of the device and still exists
in a manner that can be accounted for.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Dave, I disagree but I like that you utilize the local observer becoming the
remote observer because I think Shawyer’s claim of a relativistic component is
correct. Think SR, time dilation and Lorentzian contraction via vacuum
engineering instead of near C velocity. Even if the modification is only slight
this device is building a warp or well that allows us to exchange spatial and
temporal coordinates such that we can unbalance the normal law of equal and
opposite reaction. Accumulated over time in free space this would make a
reactionless drive. Spontaneous emission is known to be modified by microwave
cavities and I think this is may be the principle that he is optimizing via
geometry and microwaves. Think about the Pythagorean relationship between time
and space experienced by the Paradox twins, the near C twin is contracted in
the direction of travel from the stationary twins perspective and is time
dilated BUT everything appears normal to each twin in their own local frame..
each twin perceives normal time and space locally but the quadrants are shifted
from each other. If Shawers is modifying inertial frames without spatial
displacement [what Puthoff calls vacuum engineering] then you can have
dilation, contraction and the opportunity to establish linkage between
different frames because they can be stationary to each other
spatially..something that IMHO is the reason for the odd spectrum of light for
which Mills named his company as SPP translates wavelengths between scales. If
shawyer can establish linkage between different inertial frames than he should
be able to exchange time for motion. He is using microwaves but extending this
theory to Rossi and Mills I am suggesting that the hydrogen that is most
suppressed by Casimir geometry {DCE} is the most contracted and dialted and
just like the twin Paradox is experiencing time and space in different
quadrants from the hydrogen outside the cavity which exists at a very
consistent vacuum pressure we refer to as the isotropy. If force can be exerted
on these dilated hydrogen from a different inertial frame it will unbalance the
spatial forces in both frames because of the Lorentzian translations.
Fran
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
It seems to me that the reactionless type of drive does seem to violate common
sense. By this statement I mean that if we assume that internal energy is
converted into kinetic energy by using the drive then the mass of the spaceship
would appear to be different according to different observers.
For example, an observer at rest with the ship before it activates the drive
will measure a certain value of mass. If we assume that this observer watches
the ship speed up relative to him without emitting exhaust he comes to the
conclusion that energy has appeared out of nowhere and is imparted to the ship.
A second observer who is at rest with the ship after the drive is enacted will
wonder why its mass has decreased. The energy associated with this mass loss
seems to vanish into thin air. This system leads one to conclude that the
conservation of momentum as well as conservation of energy and mass becomes
violated.
If you think of this behavior as effecting individual atoms, how and why would
it be appropriate to obtain different values for this parameter? This problem
appears to eliminate the real likelihood of reactionless drives.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:18 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:27:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>> ?Newton's laws of motion are effectively violated unless the reaction of
>these virtual particles can be observed in another way.
...it just means you are pushing against the mass of the universe.
Effectively, all the energy absorbed is returned as kinetic energy of the craft.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
What I was wondering is if the reaction of the quantum vacuum has other
observable effects besides the thrust.
For example, the thrust generated by a standard engine results in an exhaust
which can be seen to disturb other bodies nearby.
If one can push against the quantum vacuum will this disturb other bodies as
well?
Harry
