[extropy-chat] bidirectional thrust

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:21:48 +0100, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
> > The problem is, however, that inertia (as a reaction force
> > to acceleration, or rotation) occurs at the same moment
> > that acceleration, or rotation, is applied to the
> > specific object. Thus, Mach principle should imply
> > a sort of instantaneous back-reaction propagating field,
> > from the distant stars to the specific object, involving
> > superluminal velocities. (As Hal was, perhaps, meaning).
> 
> I thought general relativity agreed with that idea, though, in the
> form of frame dragging? So if a spaceship is trying to accelerate,
> the
> presence of massive objects nearby will increase the spaceship's
> effective inertia (unless they're moving/accelerating in the
> direction the ship is trying to go)?

Nearby objects *can't* play this role, else there would be measurable
differences in inertial resistance in certain directions. Since there
isn't, they don't.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com