[extropy-chat] Relativity drive: the end of wings and wheels?

[The Avantguardian]

I read up on it. It generates a static force (like
friction) there is no net impulse just the reduction
of external forces. (i.e. it cancels out a few grams
of g). Its like an optical gyroscope. It can't propel
anything but may still be useful. Although it has to
have better mass to force ratio to do much good.

--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 10:46 AM 9/8/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote:
> > > The best I've found so far is here:
> > > http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm
> >
> >On the one hand, it claims that this operates
> within the laws of
> >physics; that is, a conventional calculation will
> show that this is a
> >reactionless drive.
> >
> >On the other hand, they provide no numbers or
> calculations and while
> >IANAP I'm pretty damned sure that the laws of
> physics prohibit this.  To
> >be specific, it appears to violate conservation of
> momentum.  As I
> >understand it, conservation of momentum is a
> fundamental consequence of
> >   the laws of physics being invariant under
> translation in space.  Since
> >every elementary event known to physical law obeys
> conservation of
> >momentum, all larger systems also obey conservation
> of momentum.
> >
> >If they told me that microwaves shot out the other
> end, I'd be far more
> >willing to believe it.
> 
> I wouldn't.  You have any idea of what a microwave
> generator with 2 gms of 
> thrust would do to the countryside?
> 
> >As it is, my reading is that if this were true it
> would be front-page
> >news in every newspaper on the face of the Earth
> and would necessarily
> >involve DRASTIC changes to the fundamental laws of
> physics.
> >
> >IANAP but this sounds completely unbelievable.  But
> then it is not the
> >place of transhumanists to substitute themselves
> for the physicist
> >community in judging claims of perpetual motion or
> reactionless driving.
> 
> Reactionless drives *are* perpetual motion machines.
>  If you can't 
> visualize why I can explain the obvious.
> 
> >   When it hits the cover of _Science_, then report
> on it.  (New
> >Scientist is not a trustworthy source.)
> >
> >Of course it is also possible that e.g. microwaves
> do shoot out the
> >other end, and the nontechnical press has simply
> failed to grasp this.
> 
> See above.
> 
> Keith
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The 'I' is an illusion but that illusion needs to be experienced, and it is only by experience that it can be known as an illusion."

- Shankarachanya

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