[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: Nathan Mogk <nm8911@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:30:31 -0700
There is by definition no reference frame that you can measure the momentum
of the universe with respect to. You could pick an arbitrary observer and
then measure it, but at that point we are talking about normal reference
frames again. There is nothing inherently rule-breaking about exchanging
momentum with the (rest of the) universe, but it does mean that there are
no inertial reference frames remaining.
On Monday, August 4, 2014, Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's the patch that the emdrive folks suggested... but it's clearly
> spackling up the cracks with bullshit. First, there's nothing in the theory
> paper that require this reduction in thrust. Second, there's extremely good
> evidence (starting with the Michaelson-Morley experiment and going through
> every experimental confirmation of relativity) that there is no such
> preferred reference frame. Third, even if there was, there is effectively
> no chance we'd be anywhere near at rest with respect to it, as pointed out
> by Ian.
>
> -p
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Robert C Steinke <rsteinke@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rsteinke@xxxxxxxxxxx');>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 17:47:06 +0100
>> Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx');>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 August 2014 16:54, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx');>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Suppose, as has been claimed, the drive is somehow exchanging momentum
>>>> with the entire universe. The momentum of the universe may have a
>>>> (?local)
>>>> velocity - which would be mathematically equivalent to a preferred
>>>> frame of
>>>> reference.
>>>>
>>>> If so, there need be no violation of either of the conservation laws.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Even that wouldn't be of any practical use for propulsion.
>>>
>>> There's basically zero chance that you would moving close the preferred
>>> frame of reference's speed. And if you're not.. .big trouble in little
>>> china.
>>>
>>
>> If the preferred frame of reference was going in the direction you want
>> to go it would be useful for propulsion.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:17:44 -0700
>> Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx');>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Let's take, for example, the NASA tests. I haven't had time to read the
>>> paper in depth (thank you Clive), but at a skim, it appears that they are
>>> claiming a thrust to power ratio of 2 uN/W. The required upward velocity
>>> to
>>> violate energy conservation is 500 km/s. That's infeasible for
>>> engineering
>>> reasons... but it's not relativistic by any stretch of the imagination.
>>>
>>> -p
>>>
>>
>> You are assuming the thrust to power ratio is constant. If instead it
>> depends on your speed relative to the preferred frame of reference that you
>> are pushing against then it doesn't have to violate conservation of energy.
>> Once you get up to 500 km/s you will find that you are no longer getting 2
>> uN/W. The NASA tests, if they aren't experimental error, only show a thrust
>> to power ratio under one particular experimental condition.
>>
>> Disclaimer: I also think it's probably experimental error, but if a
>> couple different groups have seen something unusual then someone like NIAC
>> should look into it.
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
