David, I take it you now accept that energy can be stored without increasing mass?
I can see you have avoided tackling the subject so I assume this is an admission that you can't. This then means we can produce a reactionless drive by changing between forms of energy that do and do not contribute mass. As for the microwave cavity, if you put microwaves in a cavity, how long after you stop pumping in microwaves do they stop bouncing around inside? Real world, which means an imperfect cavity. So the production of thrust seems to occur as a bonus. We can't really observe that the energy loss is greater because thrust is produced. Additionally the argument energy could come to nothing it maybe in a sense correct, but only because a true reactionless drive by default will destroy the conservation of energy by allowing both the creation and destruction of energy. Creation because reaching double the speed with the same energy cost is a violation as it implies eventually gaining more from acceleration that the energy cost. And indeed because opposing kinetic energy results in a net loss of energy. But an assumption about the perfection of the CoE should not be assumed since that is just a theory and one that is based on the assumption that the fabric of space does not change. But if this device is pushing on the virtual particles of space or maybe the Higgs Boson or space time it's self then energy would not necessarily be conserved. Here is an article on the non-conservation of energy: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ Please remember that the conservation of energy is just an idea based on symmetry. And I would personally argue that treating energy like a supernatural force makes no sense and that any example of energy being converted and conserved looks much more like creation and destruction of energy happening in perfect balance. And that giving energy some life, some existence besides the mechanics of the situation is mysticism. John On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of > the missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two > directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and > velocity we decide that all of that energy is imparted to the negative > energy sea. How do we reconcile these two very different sinks for the > energy? > > I seldom like to use the term magic in a scientific argument, but that is > the best way to explain this concept. We operate a device onboard our > ship for a long period of time while our ship vanishes into thin space. > We have absolutely nothing to show for the missing mass and no one can > locate any of it. That is a long stretch. > > A second observer that was at rest next to the ship before the drive was > active is also confused. He sees the ship gaining kinetic energy while > violating the conservation of momentum by demonstrating no exhaust stream. > But then, it returns to his side with no motion remaining and contains > potentially much less mass than before. He must be totally baffled. This > is especially difficult for him to understand when everything would add up > correctly had the ship used a normal drive by ejecting exhaust. > > There are too many inconsistencies for me to accept the concept as > possible so far. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:14 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > David-- > > The guy need only account for the loss of mass energy by adding the amount > of energy transferred to the negative energy sea. > > Of course, if he does not consider a negative energy sea exists, he cannot > properly account. He is stuck with an observation that makes no sense to > him. > > His reaction less drive converted what was originally linear momentum of > real particles to the intrinsic property of angular momentum energy, which > he does not accounted for in measuring the the rest mass of real > particles. The rest mass of his ship has decreased from his counting of > particles, the angular momentum of the universe has been transferred to the > negative sea--the Dirac sea. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > Yes, he can determine that he has changed velocity by looking outside > the ship at other objects. That is why I proposed the recent posting where > he returns to the original location and velocity. That procedure counters > the thought that a final velocity change can obscure any problems due to > usage of the reactionless drive. Special Relativity is generally > considered capable of countering the natural feeling that a particular > velocity is important in space, but with zero velocity change there is no > need to play that card. > > The guy must reconcile where the mass of his ship has gone after using the > reactionless drive. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > > David-- > > You stated: > > <<<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. >>> > > Yes he can determine he is moving. All he needs to do is look out the > window and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed > before he started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. > > 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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > 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 <dlrober...@aol.com> > 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 > >
