Pair production is fairly well established from what I have read. In that case energy is converted into mass but I do not recall any mention of the real pair appearing without some type of input.
In particle accelerators mass is created in the form of new particles from the energy contained within the original interacting particles. Both of these cases convert one form of energy into another but do not create anything out of the vacuum without that initial energy. Here I equate energy with mass when I use the term energy. You need to ask someone else about the angular momentum questions you have since I have never looked into that issue. By the way, if I do not respond to your posting or some part of the same it does not carry any implications of my acceptance to what you are stating. I just may not be inclined to comment. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. David-- Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? The parameter of spin associated with the electron and the positron that are produced in the pair production involves angular momentum of the electron that comes from some source--empty space or some other place. Where does the energy associated with that angular momentum of each of those new particles come from? Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? One possible answer is that the energy associated with angular momentum is not convertible to mass, at least in the 3-D space we know, but is coupled to epos and their mass energy in the Dirac sea of particles with negative energy. I do not have a good answer for the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum involving the Dirac sea. I believe Dirac only assumed conservation of energy. D. L. Hotson provided some explaination of the Dirac sea and its realtion to the spin of the electron and positron in an interesting paper that can be obtained at the following link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fopenseti.org%2FDocs%2FHotsonPart1.pdf&ei=W_lzVIS_KoT3oATC_IGABA&usg=AFQjCNEGpOAW06Y1ny75ZQHr58i_WIOasA&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cGU Check page 12 of this paper for the a possible answer regarding the conversion of energy associated with angular momentur of the electron and positron. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere without leaving a trace that it may be possible for a drive of this sort to operate. It is easy for the guy on the ship to detect that he is accelerating which takes a force and therefore energy from somewhere. That source could be onboard the ship in the form of a cold fusion reactor or something similar. With this in mind I believe that it becomes necessary to prove that the sink for this energy is indeed something like the Dirac sea. So far evidence for some sort of invisible sink is found in the form of a force that some researchers claim to measure when experimenting with reactionless drives. It is quite unfortunate that the magnitude of the forces thus far measured is so tiny. If it can be shown that a vehicle in open space can accelerate without any form of exhaust then I think the concept may be valid. Of course all of the energy must be obtained from within the vehicle and not due to outside influence. It remains a question as to whether or not mass can vanish in the manner suggested. Locate a spaceship that accelerates without exhaust and you make a strong case for some energy sink that can be pushed against although the Dirac sea may not be that sink. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. 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. D. L Hotson 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
