I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.

It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:00 AMIt's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.deltaMass, can you explain this further? With my limited SR understanding - the statement "x knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust" seems perfectly acceptable to me (minus the word "thrust") but I realize I'm likely missing some key points. If you have two star systems and a rocket sets out for the other at the speed of light (99.999 etc) from each star system toward each other. Is the speed of the two rockets approaching each other 2c? No. Does that mean the two dropped down to .5c? No. Are they "aware" of each other? Kinda. If they decide to burn their thrusters a max does their approach speed increase? No.I realize you probably already understand this or maybe my understanding is wrong - so what am I missing? Thank you for your help!

I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels. We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous!

I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:28 AMI must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels. We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous! I would think the free energy speculation is a bit premature. The "frame of reference problem" could inhibit any constrained mechanism, not that such can be calculated until the momentum question is resolved.

Quote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?

Quote from: Notsosureofit on 05/07/2015 01:39 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:28 AMI must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels. We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous! I would think the free energy speculation is a bit premature. The "frame of reference problem" could inhibit any constrained mechanism, not that such can be calculated until the momentum question is resolved.To your first sentence:If by that you mean the engineering issues, then I couldn't agree more, and have already estimated here the performance gap which exists. Feel free to run your own numbers; I reckon currently we're about a factor of 50 down on breakeven.But if by that you mean the physics, I must needs take issue. Have you looked at string theory lately? I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your second sentence. Perhaps you could say it another way?

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.

Once the cavity is constrained into some fixture that ties it to a fixed frame of reference we become dependent on the type of mechanism (and it's GR behavior) which is responsible for the change in momentum of the cavity.

The reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law. A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:1. Space creates light.2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?

Quote from: NotsosureofitOnce the cavity is constrained into some fixture that ties it to a fixed frame of reference we become dependent on the type of mechanism (and it's GR behavior) which is responsible for the change in momentum of the cavity.Indeed. I was limiting my discussion to a device freely moving under its own power in free space. Clearly, bolting it down to a lab vac chamber does not satisfy that criterion.I trust you appreciate how I've "black boxed" propellantless propulsion devices - any and all of them. What I've said doesn't depend on what kind of device it is, nor upon any particular pet theory used to explain its "propellantlessness".

I'm sorry, but I can only entertain a further discussion if we restrict ourselves to severely subrelativistic (i.e. slow) scenarios - since that is a constraint I've imposed upon myself for the purposes of the most elementary possible discussion of the dynamics. In that framework then, and assuming (to first order, of course) a flat spacetime, do you now agree with Einstein's assertion about physics in inertial frames?