David--
If Dirac was correct about his negative energy sea containing epos with its
below energy electron-positron pairs (epos), then there might be "negative
energy momentum"--my term--as well, which is where the momentum of virtual
particles in the spaceman's 3-D space disappear to upon an--annihilation"--a
term invented in the 1930's to counter Dirac's concept of energy returning to
the negative energy sea.
(Keep in mind that the modern concepts of pair production from empty space and
the opposite reaction of e-p annihilation do not conserve energy associated
with angular momentum of the electron and positron nor the change of energy of
the electric field creation or collapse associated with the creation or loss
of charge respectively.)
The spaceman in his 3-D space would think that momentum transfer did not occur
because there would be no particles or other evidence of mass or energy moving
away from his space ship, yet his ship would be accelerating in his 3-D space
based on observation of objects he considered to be fixed relative to his
initial position. This would be the reaction less drive device in his space
ship.
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
I agree Axil. And those particles that are produced are then given the
momentum required to balance out that obtained by the ship. Also, they must
remain in existence as real particles and not disappear after a brief time
interval. The folks who speak of reactionless drives claim that their are no
measurable particles remaining to locate after the momentum is imparted into
the ship. That is where I can not agree.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 11:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
There is no such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being
produced in the vacuum by EMF.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless drive
believe is occurring from what I have determined. They suggest that there is
nothing available to carry away the balancing momentum. Why call it a
reactionless drive if exhaust can be measured?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
No one knows what is going on in the vacuum. If real particles are being
produced by EMF in the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
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>
To: vortex-l <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
