Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
Vortex, This discussion over whether or not Shawyer's theory is correct or not is pointless and the wrong subject. You can prove or disprove anything if you have enough mathematical and speculative handwaving to say what you want to say. The two points that SHOULD be very carefully considered are, 1. Whether or not it works. It doesn't matter if the theory is right or wrong. What matters is whether or not it produces a thrust that is truly 'reactionless'. Meaning, not expelling matter or energy, or if it expels energy, giving more thrust per energy input than an equal photon drive. If it works, then the theoretical physicists who said it couldn't should be all sacked. Then the technology should be developed. As far as I am aware, with those I've communicated with about this, the problems of heat causing convection effects have not been ruled out. The weighing methods haven't been very good, especially when you've got a microwave source this powerful hanging around nearby. I've worked on many different concepts for reactionless thrusters, and I can tell you from experience, there are MANY MANY MANY 'gotchas' that can bite you. They will almost invariably come from the one place you DIDN'T think to look. On a more personal level, I'd love to see a reactionless engine work. If for no other reason (primal, I admit), than to see a lot of so-called scientist's reputations destroyed and the physics house-of-cards utterly trashed. 2. No one has discussed thisso I will. And it is as on topic as screaming about overweight people and suggesting that vegetarian cats are good things to have around. China should NOT BE BUILDING ANYTHING THAT WILL GIVE THEM AN ADVANTAGE IN SPACE! Does anyone remember Tiananmen Square? The three powers that should be working on this should be the USA, the EU, or Japan. China should have no involvement in this whatsoever, given their atrocious human right's violations. You think the USA is bad? Go see what the Chinese do. There is no comparison. But everyone these days, Liberal or Conservative, seem to have a sick love affair with China. The USA can't build a power plant, but China can build dozens and dozens of unscrubbed coal-burners. They can have a population so oppressed that there is no hope whatsoever, and that's okay. It's not that they are bad...it's just that we in the USA and the other 'decadent' countries are too 'good off.' Once you have the high-ground, space in this case, you can do almost anything you want and get away with it. There is little defense. China, in its current state, has NO business occupying this top rung of the ladder. Last night, after reading about this, was incredibly depressing for me. It shows how badly my country, and so many others, have sold out their industry and ingenuity to an enemy regime that cares NOTHING for human life, for but a fistful of dollars and euros. If anyone in the USA, the EU, Japan, or any other free nation (they are, compared to China), has any sense left, they should research this and leave China in the dust. Hell, how about Taiwan? AKA, the nation that the USA stupidly refuses to admit exists. I'd support a Taiwanese space program, if for no other reason than telling China: "We don't care about your threats, we don't need your poisonous cat food and toys, we don't need your slave-labor produced garbage. And guess what? Taiwan don't belong to you any more, their purpose is their own, so go f**k yourselves and leave them alone to their own destiny. And by the way, if you want to exist in the next 100 years, you'd better consider releasing Tibet." If Shawyer and his company willingly gave this over to the Chinese, especially if money was involved, then he is worse than the worst, in my book. What happened to the UK's national pride? Where has it gone? Think I'll go listen to Roger Waters' "The Final Cut." It seems appropriate. --Kyle P.S., if you think I'm defending the myriad nasty things the USA has (and/or is) doing, don't bother replying. It is simply a question of who is more evil in the absolute sense. That does matter when you are talking about human lives.
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
that is not what i mean. if the wind made the ship sail at 10mph, the person on the ship knows that neither the wind nor anything else causes the land to move past him at 10mph. harry > - Original Message - > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, September 26, 2008 6:44 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > > but, wind patterns DO alter rotation, to a degree. > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:> > But the pool players won't fall over simply because you > choose > > the ball > > > as your frame of reference throughout the process. You have to > > choose a > > > frame a reference which is inertial (at rest or moving with > constant> > velocity) throughout the entire process, i.e. before, > during and > > after> the collision. > > > > > > Anyway this is not really where I wanted to end up because I > find > > myself> in agreement with newtonian relativity. lol > > > > > > It is the ahistorical aspect of newtonian relativity which > > bothers me. > > > When I stand on shore and see a ship sail by, and I know that > it was > > > set in motion by the wind. Also a person on the ship knows > > > the shore was not set in motion by the wind. > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:24 pm > > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > > > > >> if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that > > >> would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no > central> >> frame of refference, just what you choose. its not > conceit, its > > >> reality. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote:>> > > > >> > That is true but that is not what I mean. > > >> > > > >> > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the > table and > > >> the> earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 > m/s wrt > > >> to the > > >> > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still > > >> resting,> and that the table and the earth are now moving > under you > > >> at 1 m/s? > > >> > > > >> > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around > the> >> table> would have been flung off their feet as the earth > abruptly> >> accelerated> under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. > > >> > > > >> > Harry > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > - Original Message - > > >> > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm > > >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > >> > > > >> >> Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you > push> >> the>> Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes > a hell of > > >> a lot > > >> >> harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, > > >> however>> infintesimal, with each step. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote:>> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > - Original Message - > > >> >> > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am > > >> >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> OrionWorks wrote: > > >> >> >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > See: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese- > buildin.html> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >>
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
that is not what i mean. if the wind made the ship sail at 10mph, the person on the ship knows that neither the wind not anything else causes the land to move past him at 10mph. harry - Original Message - From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, September 26, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > but, wind patterns DO alter rotation, to a degree. > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But the pool players won't fall over simply because you choose > the ball > > as your frame of reference throughout the process. You have to > choose a > > frame a reference which is inertial (at rest or moving with constant > > velocity) throughout the entire process, i.e. before, during and > after> the collision. > > > > Anyway this is not really where I wanted to end up because I find > myself> in agreement with newtonian relativity. lol > > > > It is the ahistorical aspect of newtonian relativity which > bothers me. > > When I stand on shore and see a ship sail by, and I know that it was > > set in motion by the wind. Also a person on the ship knows > > the shore was not set in motion by the wind. > > > > Harry > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:24 pm > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > > >> if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that > >> would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no central > >> frame of refference, just what you choose. its not conceit, its > >> reality. > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:>> > > >> > That is true but that is not what I mean. > >> > > >> > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the table and > >> the> earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 m/s wrt > >> to the > >> > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still > >> resting,> and that the table and the earth are now moving under you > >> at 1 m/s? > >> > > >> > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around the > >> table> would have been flung off their feet as the earth abruptly > >> accelerated> under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. > >> > > >> > Harry > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > - Original Message - > >> > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm > >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> > > >> >> Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push > >> the>> Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of > >> a lot > >> >> harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, > >> however>> infintesimal, with each step. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote:>> > > >> >> > > >> >> > - Original Message - > >> >> > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am > >> >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> OrionWorks wrote: > >> >> >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > See: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, > maybe,>> >> >> but I > >> >> >> don't recognize it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell > checker>> >> over>> their front page, which doesn't automatically > fill one with > >> >> >> confidence. > >> >> >> From the description, it appea
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
but, wind patterns DO alter rotation, to a degree. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But the pool players won't fall over simply because you choose the ball > as your frame of reference throughout the process. You have to choose a > frame a reference which is inertial (at rest or moving with constant > velocity) throughout the entire process, i.e. before, during and after > the collision. > > Anyway this is not really where I wanted to end up because I find myself > in agreement with newtonian relativity. lol > > It is the ahistorical aspect of newtonian relativity which bothers me. > When I stand on shore and see a ship sail by, and I know that it was > set in motion by the wind. Also a person on the ship knows > the shore was not set in motion by the wind. > > Harry > > > - Original Message - > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:24 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that >> would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no central >> frame of refference, just what you choose. its not conceit, its >> reality. >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > That is true but that is not what I mean. >> > >> > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the table and >> the> earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 m/s wrt >> to the >> > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still >> resting,> and that the table and the earth are now moving under you >> at 1 m/s? >> > >> > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around the >> table> would have been flung off their feet as the earth abruptly >> accelerated> under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. >> > >> > Harry >> > >> > >> > >> > - Original Message - >> > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit >> > >> >> Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push >> the>> Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of >> a lot >> >> harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, >> however>> infintesimal, with each step. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote:>> > >> >> > >> >> > - Original Message - >> >> > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am >> >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> OrionWorks wrote: >> >> >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > See: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, >> >> >> but I >> >> >> don't recognize it. >> >> >> >> >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker >> >> over>> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with >> >> >> confidence. >> >> >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. >> >> Surprising>> that they claim it will fly. >> >> >> >> >> >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, >> >> they say: >> >> >> >> >> >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate >> >> frames of >> >> >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the >> speed>> >> of light. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must >> >> apply>> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed >> >> of light. >> >> >> In >> >> >&g
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
But the pool players won't fall over simply because you choose the ball as your frame of reference throughout the process. You have to choose a frame a reference which is inertial (at rest or moving with constant velocity) throughout the entire process, i.e. before, during and after the collision. Anyway this is not really where I wanted to end up because I find myself in agreement with newtonian relativity. lol It is the ahistorical aspect of newtonian relativity which bothers me. When I stand on shore and see a ship sail by, and I know that it was set in motion by the wind. Also a person on the ship knows the shore was not set in motion by the wind. Harry - Original Message - From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that > would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no central > frame of refference, just what you choose. its not conceit, its > reality. > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That is true but that is not what I mean. > > > > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the table and > the> earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 m/s wrt > to the > > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still > resting,> and that the table and the earth are now moving under you > at 1 m/s? > > > > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around the > table> would have been flung off their feet as the earth abruptly > accelerated> under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > > >> Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push > the>> Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of > a lot > >> harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, > however>> infintesimal, with each step. > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:>> > > >> > > >> > - Original Message - > >> > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am > >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> OrionWorks wrote: > >> >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! > >> >> > > >> >> > See: > >> >> > > >> >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, > >> >> but I > >> >> don't recognize it. > >> >> > >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker > >> over>> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with > >> >> confidence. > >> >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. > >> Surprising>> that they claim it will fly. > >> >> > >> >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, > >> they say: > >> >> > >> >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate > >> frames of > >> >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the > speed>> >> of light. > >> >> > >> >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must > >> apply>> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed > >> of light. > >> >> In > >> >> fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy > >> *must* be > >> >> carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else > >> you'll>> end up with nonsensical results (just as they have > >> apparently done > >> >> here). > >> >> In the FAQs they say: > >> >> > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an > >> open>> > system, with the EM wave and the wa
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no central frame of refference, just what you choose. its not conceit, its reality. On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is true but that is not what I mean. > > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the table and the > earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 m/s wrt to the > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still resting, > and that the table and the earth are now moving under you at 1 m/s? > > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around the table > would have been flung off their feet as the earth abruptly accelerated > under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. > > Harry > > > > - Original Message - > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push the >> Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of a lot >> harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, however >> infintesimal, with each step. >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > - Original Message - >> > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> OrionWorks wrote: >> >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! >> >> > >> >> > See: >> >> > >> >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, >> >> but I >> >> don't recognize it. >> >> >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker >> over>> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with >> >> confidence. >> >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. >> Surprising>> that they claim it will fly. >> >> >> >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, >> they say: >> >> >> >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate >> frames of >> >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed >> >> of light. >> >> >> >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must >> apply>> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed >> of light. >> >> In >> >> fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy >> *must* be >> >> carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else >> you'll>> end up with nonsensical results (just as they have >> apparently done >> >> here). >> >> In the FAQs they say: >> >> > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an >> open>> > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate >> frames of >> >> > reference. >> >> >> >> This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is >> based on >> >> what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's >> nothing>> magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any >> mystical>> significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly* >> the same concept >> >> exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics. >> >> >> >> When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table, >> the cue >> >> and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the >> ball is >> >> hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum >> in the >> >> *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum >> in the >> >> *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go? >> >> Answer: >> >> you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame, not a >> >> different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick >> which>> frame to use.) >> >> >> > >> > I have difficulty even accepting newtonian relativity. >> > Do you think by a flick of the wrist the mass of the table (and the >> > earth!) have gone from being at rest wrt to the cue ball, to >> being in >> > motion wrt to the cue ball? >> > >> > Harry >> > >> > >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
That is true but that is not what I mean. Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the table and the earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 m/s wrt to the table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still resting, and that the table and the earth are now moving under you at 1 m/s? If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around the table would have been flung off their feet as the earth abruptly accelerated under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. Harry - Original Message - From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push the > Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of a lot > harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, however > infintesimal, with each step. > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > > >> > >> > >> OrionWorks wrote: > >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! > >> > > >> > See: > >> > > >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, > >> but I > >> don't recognize it. > >> > >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker > over>> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with > >> confidence. > >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. > Surprising>> that they claim it will fly. > >> > >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, > they say: > >> > >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate > frames of > >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed > >> of light. > >> > >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must > apply>> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed > of light. > >> In > >> fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy > *must* be > >> carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else > you'll>> end up with nonsensical results (just as they have > apparently done > >> here). > >> In the FAQs they say: > >> > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an > open>> > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate > frames of > >> > reference. > >> > >> This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is > based on > >> what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's > nothing>> magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any > mystical>> significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly* > the same concept > >> exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics. > >> > >> When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table, > the cue > >> and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the > ball is > >> hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum > in the > >> *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum > in the > >> *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go? > >> Answer: > >> you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame, not a > >> different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick > which>> frame to use.) > >> > > > > I have difficulty even accepting newtonian relativity. > > Do you think by a flick of the wrist the mass of the table (and the > > earth!) have gone from being at rest wrt to the cue ball, to > being in > > motion wrt to the cue ball? > > > > Harry > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
On Sep 25, 2008, at 6:45 AM, OrionWorks wrote: See: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Thanks for posting. I'm glad to see the dream lives on. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push the Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of a lot harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth, however infintesimal, with each step. On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > >> >> >> OrionWorks wrote: >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! >> > >> > See: >> > >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html >> > >> > >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, >> but I >> don't recognize it. >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker over >> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with >> confidence. >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. Surprising >> that they claim it will fly. >> >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, they say: >> >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed >> of light. >> >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must apply >> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed of light. >> In >> fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy *must* be >> carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else you'll >> end up with nonsensical results (just as they have apparently done >> here). >> In the FAQs they say: >> > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open >> > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of >> > reference. >> >> This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is based on >> what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's nothing >> magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any mystical >> significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly* the same concept >> exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics. >> >> When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table, the cue >> and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the ball is >> hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum in the >> *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum in the >> *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go? >> Answer: >> you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame, not a >> different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick which >> frame to use.) >> > > I have difficulty even accepting newtonian relativity. > Do you think by a flick of the wrist the mass of the table (and the > earth!) have gone from being at rest wrt to the cue ball, to being in > motion wrt to the cue ball? > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit > > > OrionWorks wrote: > > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! > > > > See: > > > > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html > > > > > > Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, > but I > don't recognize it. > > I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker over > their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with > confidence. > From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. Surprising > that they claim it will fly. > > I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, they say: > > > ... Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of > > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed > of light. > > This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must apply > "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed of light. > In > fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy *must* be > carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else you'll > end up with nonsensical results (just as they have apparently done > here). > In the FAQs they say: > > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open > > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of > > reference. > > This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is based on > what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's nothing > magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any mystical > significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly* the same concept > exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics. > > When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table, the cue > and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the ball is > hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum in the > *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum in the > *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go? > Answer: > you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame, not a > different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick which > frame to use.) > I have difficulty even accepting newtonian relativity. Do you think by a flick of the wrist the mass of the table (and the earth!) have gone from being at rest wrt to the cue ball, to being in motion wrt to the cue ball? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
OrionWorks wrote: > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts! > > See: > > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html > > Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe, but I don't recognize it. I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker over their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with confidence. >From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven. Surprising that they claim it will fly. I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page, they say: > ... Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must apply "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed of light. In fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy *must* be carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else you'll end up with nonsensical results (just as they have apparently done here). In the FAQs they say: > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of > reference. This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is based on what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's nothing magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any mystical significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly* the same concept exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics. When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table, the cue and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the ball is hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum in the *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum in the *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go? Answer: you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame, not a different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick which frame to use.) -- > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
