David--
In your going and coming trip:
The spaceman uses energy by speeding up and slowing down in each
direction--going out and coming back. He notices a loss of mass to somewhere,
but not account for by any particles or mass he can measure that has left the
space craft in going and coming back.
The stationary observer sees a speeding up and slowing down going out and the
same coming back. He also does not see any mass being expelled by the
spaceship. However he weighs the ship when it has returned and notices a
decrease in mass equivalent to the energy used to speed up and slow down that
he observed. Both of the observers see the same loss of mass, but do not
realize it has been transferred to outside of their 3-D space as negative
energy and momentum to the Dirac sea. Total energy and momentum was conserved
in the transfer.
Seems magical, but conserves energy and momentum, potentially by conserving
spin energy with a coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and
related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound
like Rossi--
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
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
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
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
