Yes, and the faster the ship moves the lower frequency an observer in the initial frame will see the exhaust.
I have no problem as I said in understanding how this conserves momentum and energy. But I have no idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes etc... On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds > the energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries > mass which of course has momentum. The momentum that is imparted upon the > ship is matched by that of the light. That is a normal propulsion system. > > A reactionless system would have the ship with the spring begin to move in > some direction without any type of ejection mass. That is my objection. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:27 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > Dave I do not understand what you are talking about. > > But if consider the following, it might? Generate the same conundrum > while not violating the conservation of momentum or energy. > > Take a spring, compress it. > As the spring is allowed to decompress generates light (by either > friction, or electromagnetic induction to an efficient form of lighting. > > The light is projected in one direction, providing a small but real > thrust. > > This would have propulsion with unchanging mass (other forms of energy > storage could be used instead). > > Does this also generate the same 'problem' for you? > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of >> the original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. >> It might not be easy, but it can be done. >> >> The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is >> assumed to be converted into energy to generate thrust. A person onboard >> the ship will only see that the mass of his ship is depleted since his >> velocity is constant after the drive is cut off as far as he knows. Of >> course he will feel the acceleration as the drive is powered, but he has no >> way to determine his velocity relative to the universe before or after that >> occurs. Velocity is relative to the observer. >> >> If we take this process to the extreme, lets assume that 90% of the mass >> of the original ship is consumed by the energy required to operate the >> reactionless drive. Once the drive is shut down the spaceman begins to >> drift in space. As far as he can observe, he is sitting still in space and >> has no kinetic energy. But where did all that original mass end up? It >> just vanished, which makes no sense. >> >> With a normal ship that relies upon the conservation of momentum all of >> the mass that has been ejected can be located. Whether in the form of >> electromagnetic waves or raw mass that was ejected, the total will be the >> same as before the drive is activated. This makes complete sense and is >> what has been demonstrated so far in real life. >> >> In the first case mass has been lost without anything to show for its >> existence. In the second one, nothing is missing and everything adds up as >> expected. I find it very difficult to believe that both situations are >> possible. >> >> How would you explain to the spaceman on the ship powered by a >> reactionless drive where most of the mass of his ship is now located? Have >> atoms of fuel actually disappeared? Even if some form of nuclear reaction >> is used to power the drive he can not locate the energy generated by the >> nuclear process. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mixent <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 3:26 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:25:41 -0500: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >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. >> > >> >> It's just the same as a car on a road. You know that some of the energy in >> the >> fuel ends up as kinetic energy of the car, and this doesn't surprise you at >> all. >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
