Bob, well said, I would only add that this is also not a matter of ejecting mass but energy consumed to directionalize an existing media like an airplane or boat prop re-directionalize air or water - it is giving the spacecraft linkage to the ether against which it can simply push. Although this is easier to see with hydrogen particles I think Shawyer is somehow employing the same principle with just microwaves. IMHO the hydrogen when fractionalized or IRH is aging at a different rate than normal 3D hydrogen, many recent threads seem to indicate that SPP is the linkage to these regions where the isotropy is broken and virtual particle pressure is fractured into a tapestry described by the ( inverse spacing between lattice geometries) ^4 through which hydrogen still migrates according to the random motion of gas law, The SPP linkage is allowing us to push against a special type of relativistic hydrogen - a type that doesn't shoot past our stationary frame at high fractions of C but rather modifies the space between these plates into a gravitational hill/warp where virtual particles are compressed instead of stretched. Mass is not lost because nature will float physical matter back to our plane as the local frame for these hydrogen are still subject to random gas motion that migrates it back up thru the tapestry from the more robust areas against which the linkage finds purchase. Although the Rossi and Mills scheme utilize the random motion of gas to bootstrap their process I actually suspect it will be easier to demonstrate inertia modification by employing SPP as stims, I just don't think anyone has looked for it yet / Difiore et all were seeking an effect from passive arrangement of cavities and don't believe they ever tried to stimulate the effect. Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. Dave-- If the mass is converted into mass of virtual particles in the Dirac space, it is obvious that the man in the space ship would never see the results. The standard conversion of energy normally happens in a measurable 3-D space the space man knows. The other situation involves the Dirac space in addition to the standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not observable yet. You must think outside the 3-D box. Engineers do this better than scientists. Note Bob Higgins recent comment attributed to a mentor of his. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. 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 <mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> 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
