First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear to create a net thrust.
However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work. Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being mathematically proven or disproven. Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass. Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship. Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly. So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance to acceleration is unchanged? Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring uncompressed. So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons. So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to a stop. Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the > microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that > point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having > anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship > can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for > the drive mechanism. > > After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to rest > in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one > before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he > is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He > sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it > went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving > relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the >> obvious problems to offer their input. > > > One thought here -- the "reactionless drive" that I am aware of being in > the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of > microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone > other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But > if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, > e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. > > Eric > >
