Journal serviscope_minor's Journal: Is a reationless drive better than a photon rocket a perpetual motion machine? 54
Continued on from here.
I agree it may not be by much depending on mass.
No disagreement here. I was discounting it due to the low acceleration in this case (e.g. 1e-8) being essentially immaterial to the calculations. But in this case, yes, it does accelerate. We could at the moment the filament is pinched also fire up a 1N rocket motor to counter the force, killing the tiny acceleration. We could also make the mass arbitrarily large, but then it would have non negligible gravity and the calculations for how far the mass moves in any given time and it's energy become somewhat trickier.
Yea sure will.
OK, so we have our 20,000,000 J each second.
Let's swap it round. The filament is fixed to the very large mass, and you (a tiny you of negligible mass) are riding on the 1Kg mass as it accelerates. The you pinch your fingers to exert 1N of drag and you and the mass's acceleration stops (or close enough!) as the 1N of rocket engine is countered by the 1N of drag.
As before, the 20,000,000J each second is going into your fingers.
Agreed?
reationless drive (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I tkhin there no ponit in having borwesrs spell check
The saga continues... (Score:2)
As before, the 20,000,000J each second is going into your fingers.
Agreed?
Yes, it would be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it would be the same
Excellent. That's 200,000,000 J (I accidentally dropped a zero in the previous post) each second into your fingers which is 200,000,000W. Watts being Joules per second.
And it happens as long as the 1N rocket motor runs and you keep pinching.
Now let's say instead of pinching you have some sort of electrical generator hooked up, so instead of pinching you use that to exert the 1N of drag. Now you have 200,000,000W of electricity (let's ignore any conversion losses for now) to dump ins
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's say instead of pinching you have some sort of electrical generator hooked up, so instead of pinching you use that to exert the 1N of drag. Now you have 200,000,000W of electricity (let's ignore any conversion losses for now) to dump instead of heat.
Let's say you put that electricity into a resistor.
Now the resistor is getting 200,000,000J each second into it, not your fingers.
A slightly more elaborate setup, but the same as before otherwise.
And you'll keep getting those 200,000,000W of heat as long as the 1N rocket thruster runs and you exert the 1N drag on the filament.
Still agree?
Yes, would also be the same as earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, would also be the same as earlier.
Excellent.
Now imagine you have a reactionless thruster which produces 2x the thrust of a photon rocket, i.e. 1N for 150,000,000W input.
Replace the 1N rocket engine with the 1N reactionless thruster. Still 1N thrust 1N drag, so the device does not slow down. Use the electrical energy from the generator to power the thruster. This leaves 50,000,000W left over to do with what you wish. Since it's powered from the generator and thruster and there's no reaction mass to run
Re: (Score:2)
Replace the 1N rocket engine with the 1N reactionless thruster. Still 1N thrust 1N drag, so the device does not slow down. Use the electrical energy from the generator to power the thruster. This leaves 50,000,000W left over to do with what you wish. Since it's powered from the generator and thruster and there's no reaction mass to run out, you can keep going forever. So, the machine continues indefinitely at 200,000,000m/s, producing 50,000,000W of spare electrical power.
What's the limiting principal? If I reflect thrust photons off the indefinitely long filament I can also continue indefinitely in this scenario and also have more than 50MW to spare in doing so.
I can use the energy generated to accelerate ISM protons via some kind of magical wakefield accelerator and continue indefinitely.
I can simply increase my relative velocity (e.g. include Lorentz in KE calculation) such that energy produced by velocity difference at 1N of thrust exceeds 300,000,000J and power my phot
Re: (Score:2)
I can simply increase my relative velocity (e.g. include Lorentz in KE calculation) such that energy produced by velocity difference at 1N of thrust exceeds 300,000,000J and power my photon rocket directly /w energy left over indefinitely.
You can't: the limiting factor is the speed of light. In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s. That's the speed of light, and your velocity relative to the filament can never reach the speed of l
Re: (Score:2)
You can't: the limiting factor is the speed of light. In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s. That's the speed of light, and your velocity relative to the filament can never reach the speed of light.
There is no cutoff beyond which KE does not continue to rise with velocity. What changes is KE approaches infinity as relative velocity approaches C. A cutoff only appears when you elect to use non-relativistic equation for calculating energies at relativistic velocities.
Your 200,000,000J gain at 200,000,000 m/s (gamma ~1.34) isn't actually a 200,000,000J gain by adding 1N but is actually already well in excess of 300,000,000J when calculated using relativistic equation. So even in the very example you p
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand what a thought experiment is? The point isn't that perfect vacuums, frictionless surfaces or massless, stiff filaments exist or are magic, it's to separate the physical challenges of engineering off from the mental challenges of understanding the physics. Adding in all the messy details obscures what's going on.
There is no cutoff beyond which KE does not continue to rise with velocity.
Yes, and?
Your 200,000,000J gain at 200,000,000 m/s (gamma ~1.34) isn't actually a 200,000,000J gain b
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand what a thought experiment is? The point isn't that perfect vacuums, frictionless surfaces or massless, stiff filaments exist or are magic, it's to separate the physical challenges of engineering off from the mental challenges of understanding the physics. Adding in all the messy details obscures what's going on.
Yes, and?
What's the problem? I was not mocking the setup of the experiment or making fun of the concept of infinitely long filaments and super fast rockets with 1kg mass. I was pointing out a problem with understanding of relevant physics. Chiefly it is factually incorrect to use .5mv^2 beyond low velocity limit because the answers in that case are worthless (e.g. wrong).
You agreed that the object was not accelerating so there is no change in kinetic energy. Why is there a change now?
I'm more than happy to pretend and totally disregard Lorentz in the KE calculations because really in the end with every newton added energy KE
Re: (Score:2)
I was pointing out a problem with understanding of relevant physics. Chiefly it is factually incorrect to use .5mv^2 beyond low velocity limit because the answers in that case are worthless (e.g. wrong).
WHAT calculation of kinetic energy?
The setup is you have a mass travelling at 200,000,000 m/s, with 1 1N rocket motor running and 1N of drag via the filament. 200,000,000J is going into your fingers. Where's the k.e. calculation?
I was doing the K.e. calculation at much, much lower velocities. I had to spend
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT calculation of kinetic energy?
The setup is you have a mass travelling at 200,000,000 m/s, with 1 1N rocket motor running and 1N of drag via the filament. 200,000,000J is going into your fingers. Where's the k.e. calculation?
I'm using the following.
gamma
1 / sqrt(1 - (v / c)^2)
kinetic energy
(gamma - 1) * mc^2
and now you're nitpicking because I didn't redo that heavily simplified derivation in special relativity even when you know it doesn't actually affect the result?
It has a massive effect on the result. Accelerating by 1 n at v = 200,000,000 yields an increase KE of 200,000,000J neglecting relativistic effects.
The KE difference including relativity between traveling at 200,000,000m/s and 200,000,001m/s is 482,990,688J.
So you're happy to ignore the Lorentz factor because the Lorentz factor doesn't come into these calculations? How magnanimous of you. But again, what K.E. growing? you already agreed multiple times that K.E. doesn't change.
The idea I'm trying to convey is that relativity just conceptually adds unnecessary complexity to the situation at hand.
Instead of a hand-wavy nice infinite range of vel
Re: (Score:2)
The idea I'm trying to convey is that relativity just conceptually adds unnecessary complexity to the situation at hand.
You're the one who picked "half the efficiency of a photon rocket" as the question as opposed to 100x or 1000x, which put us firmly in the realm of special relativity. I chose a higher efficiency because as you said relativity adds unnecessary complexity, but you wanted to know why even a 2x efficiency boost would be a perpetual motion machine. So here we are...
It sure as hell does. The en
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who picked "half the efficiency of a photon rocket" as the question as opposed to 100x or 1000x, which put us firmly in the realm of special relativity. I chose a higher efficiency because as you said relativity adds unnecessary complexity, but you wanted to know why even a 2x efficiency boost would be a perpetual motion machine. So here we are...
It doesn't matter how much more efficient it is for the purpose of your argument.
Your entire argument thus far is based on the unreal concept that KE is limited because relative velocity is finite. This is not the case.
The energy difference between 200,000,000 and 200,000,001 m/s is not 200,000,000 J it's 482,990,688J.
Your calculation of the velocity incorrect: force is rate of change of momentum, not speed. 1N acting on 1Kg of rest mass going at 200,000,000m/s for a second won't accelerate it to 200,000,001 m/s, because it's effective mass is now much higher. You need to use gamma in that equation as well to work out what the new speed is.
My statement was intentionally NOT intended to convey what you read into it mostly out of laziness. You are correct that above the low velocity limit there is no longer a correspondence between frames and I didn't feel like working it out. The last I remember trying it was something like 2
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument thus far is based on the unreal concept that KE is limited because relative velocity is finite.
u wot m8? I have no idea how you read that misunderstanding into what I wrote. k.e. is not limited, velocity is limited.
And your calculations are wrong. I don't know how you've miscalculated it so I will do the calculation for you... here is the calculation as code so you can copy/paste it into python and check for yourself. This is all relative to the observer holding the filament.
c=300_000_
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument thus far is based on the unreal concept that KE is limited because relative velocity is finite.
u wot m8? I have no idea how you read that misunderstanding into what I wrote. k.e. is not limited, velocity is limited.
Can you clarify what "In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s." means? If you can't exceed C are you not asserting 300,000,000J can't also be exceeded? If not what are you saying?
And your calculations are wrong. I don't know how you've miscalculated it so I will do the calculation for you... here is the calculation as code so you can copy/paste it into python and check for yourself. This is all relative to the observer holding the filament.
p1 = p + 1 # Momentum of the object after applying 1N for 1s
Following runs in bc. Can't just +1 momentum.
scale = 50
c = 300000000
v1 = 200000000
vadd = 1
# relativistic velocity addition
v2 = (v1 + vadd) / (1 + (v1 * vadd / c^2))
# gammas
g1 = 1 / sqrt(1 - (v1 / c)^2)
g2 = 1 / sqrt(1 - (v2 / c)^2)
# relativistic kineti
Re: (Score:2)
Can you clarify what "In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s." means? If you can't exceed C are you not asserting 300,000,000J can't also be exceeded? If not what are you saying?
You can't get more than 300,000,000J out of 1 Newton-Second of impulse. I am absolutely asserting that. You can have as many newtons and as many seconds as you like, so kinetic energy is not limited.
Following runs in bc.
Good choice!
Can't just +1 momentum
Y
Re: (Score:2)
You can because force is rate of change of momentum. You can't +1 the velocity however. If you have a second object flying parallel to the first, then from an observer on object 2, if object 1 receives 1N for 1s, then its velocity will increase by 1m/s. But that's not where the observer is.
This is handled by the velocity addition formula I cut and paste from Wikipedia. It derives a new velocity as seen by an observer when 1m/s is added to the rocket ships frame.
v2 = (v1 + vadd) / (1 + (v1 * vadd / c^2))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why add corrections when it is already accounted for? Both the v1 and v2 are the velocities actually seen by the observer. v1 is the initial velocity and v2 is the new velocity after 1m/s is added.
If you plug in v1 values close to C and check difference betwe
Re: (Score:2)
No you are mistaken about this, and you are still over estimating the energy.
Vadd is not 1 because the force is not applied for one second. Vadd is less than 1 and then you need to apply the velocity addition formula.
With the correct vadd, you get the same results as using the well established result that force is rare of change of momentum. Is that equation something you don't accept?
Look at it this way: if your calculation is correct then a photon drive would go over unity and perpetual motion would exist
Re: (Score:2)
Vadd is not 1 because the force is not applied for one second. Vadd is less than 1 and then you need to apply the velocity addition formula.
Who cares? If it takes a second, minute, hour, year, century to add that m/s to the rocket ship so what? What actually matters is that 1N was added to the rocket ships frame and a new energy can now be observed in observers frame.
There is an initial velocity with an initial kinetic energy. You add a m/s to the rocket ships velocity from its frame and upon completion there is a new velocity with a new kinetic energy in the observers frame.
Is the velocity addition formula is wrong?
Is the measurement of ini
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? If it takes a second, minute, hour, year, century to add that m/s to the rocket ship so what? What actually matters is that 1N was added to the rocket ships frame and a new energy can now be observed in observers frame.
You're asking me who cares about the difference between Joules and Watts. They're different and you can't do physics if you don't care that different units of different dimensionality can't be freely mixed.
You add a m/s to the rocket ships velocity from its frame and
No. you do not.
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking me who cares about the difference between Joules and Watts. They're different and you can't do physics if you don't care that different units of different dimensionality can't be freely mixed.
Why do you believe this? What did I say that indicates this to be the case?
Joules are a unit of energy, watts are a unit of power. To derive energy from power you need to know how much for how long. What I'm asking here is only about energy not power. There is no "how long" that is at all relevant to my question only energy content.
You add a m/s to the rocket ships velocity from its frame and
No. you do not. You apply 1N of force for 1/gamma seconds so you add 1/gamma meters per second.
Gamma is always 1 in the rest frame of the rocket ship. If I add a newton of force from the rest frame of the rocket ship with a mass of 1kg its velocity increases from 0 to
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you believe this? What did I say that indicates this to be the case?
Because you have said it repeatedly. A photon rocket gives 3e+08 Joules per second. That's Watts. You said you don't care how long it takes to gain the energy. That demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about the difference between power and energy. You have also been deeply confused, repeatedly, thinking that me saying it that 1Ns yields at most 3e+08J of energy is somehow the same as me saying kinetic energy is limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have said it repeatedly.
What exactly did I say repeatedly? Please quote what I said because I don't even understand what you are objecting to.
A photon rocket gives 3e+08 Joules per second. That's Watts. You said you don't care how long it takes to gain the energy.
There is a fixed amount of force required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1m/s. It does not matter how long it takes to apply that force because the end result is the same weather it takes a nanosecond or a century to achieve an acceleration of 1m/s.
In the example I used previously an ION thruster took 1 second to accelerate 1m/s by burning 10,000J of energy.
If the same ION thruster took 2
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly did I say repeatedly? Please quote what I said because I don't even understand what you are objecting to.
No need. You have done it again in this post.
There is a fixed amount of force required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1m/s. It does not matter how long it takes to apply that force because the end result is the same weather it takes a nanosecond or a century to achieve an acceleration of 1m/s.
That is meaningless because you are mixing up units.
It takes a fixed amount of impulse which is Newt
Re: (Score:2)
An observer on the object sees the motor fire for 1 second with 1N of force. An observer in the rest frame sees it fire for gamma seconds with 1N of force, which is much longer. The FORCE in both cases is the same, the IMPULSE is not.
How can force possibly be the same when the rocket ship is accelerating twice as fast in the rest frame as it is in the observer frame? I don't understand, care to enlighten me?
What on earth is "positional" energy?
It means potential energy.
The only way you can make your maths not yield free energy is to invent a hidden source of energy. That doesn't exist. Your maths is wrong. Even if I couldn't tell you where it ought to be obvious that it is wrong because if you yield free energy you messed up somewhere.
I find this fucking hilarious. The only reason I bothered to show that KE increase is not bounded to C as you incorrectly assumed is to demonstrate that your thought experiment is invalid.
You on the other hand take this not as not evidence against your thought experiment but instead interpret it as further
Re: (Score:2)
While you are deeply confused between the relationship between energy, power, force and impulse, this discussion is fruitless. You still appear to believe that a limit in the power per unit of force (or energy per unit impulse) is equivalent somehow to a limit on kinetic energy. That's absurd and until you understand you won't stop daftly claiming I said the latter when I said the former.
How can force possibly be the same when the rocket ship is accelerating twice as fast in the rest frame as it is in the o
Re: (Score:2)
While you are deeply confused between the relationship between energy, power, force and impulse, this discussion is fruitless. You still appear to believe that a limit in the power per unit of force (or energy per unit impulse) is equivalent somehow to a limit on kinetic energy. That's absurd and until you understand you won't stop daftly claiming I said the latter when I said the former.
Neither of us are confused about what this is about. It's about the following statement:
"In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s"
You claim KE added per 1N of thrust does not rise with velocity indefinitely and is instead capped at 300,000,000J as you've repeatedly asserted.
This is clearly not the case. It's what the cute little v^2 after the v in .5mv^2 is saying in the newton equation and the (gamma - 1) * mc^2 in the relativi
Re: (Score:2)
C difference between initial and new velocity is increasingly larger (g2 - g1)
I meant to say "new gamma" not "new velocity".
Re: (Score:2)
"In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s"
Never said that. I said Joules per second, because you see, Joules and Watts are NOT the same thing.
You claim KE added per 1N of thrust
That is a meaningless statement. K.E. is not added per unit of thrust, it is added per unit of thrust per second. Everything that follows from a meaningless statement is meaningless. And your invention of what I said is equally bogus because I said per secon
Re: (Score:2)
In order for 1N of thrust to exceed 300,000,000J, your velocity (relative to the filament) must exceed 300,000,000m/s
Never said that. I said Joules per second, because you see, Joules and Watts are NOT the same thing.
Jesus now you are attacking yourself with the x is not y gaslighting.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
And there's your problem: you've copy/pasted some forumlas you don't understand and are putting garbage into them and expecting sense out. Correct equations won't give you correct results if you put the wrong numbers in. And you are putting the wrong numbers in because you are not accounting for time dilation.
What is the justification of the 1/gamma for "time dilation" why specifically is it needed? The velocity addition formula already accounts for time dilation so why do you believe it is necessary to account for it twice?
Previously you claimed thrust force was same in both frames and that's why you needed to account for time dilation.
Then you admitted the opposite was true and actually "impulse" was the sam
Re: (Score:2)
To continue your analogy, you've mathematically analysed the pot of water anyway, shown you can get free energy and concluded my pot of water is wrong as opposed to your maths. Regardless of whether my pot of water is relevant, if you get free energy analysing it with your maths, then you have done the maths wrong.
And there's your problem: you've copy/pasted some forumlas you don't understand and are putting garbage into them and expecting sense out. Correct equations won't give you correct results if you put the wrong numbers in. And you are putting the wrong numbers in because you are not accounting for time dilation.
I suck at math... I'm doing it wrong.. I didn't account for magic voodoo bullshit and I'm using the wrong units... Watts are not Joules blah blah blah... So lets see what any of the bazillion online calculators have to say.
https://physicscalc.com/physic... [physicscalc.com]
Projectile velocity 1m/s
space velocity 200000000m/s...
calculate...
Drumroll...
Answer: 200000000.55493996 m/s
My wrong math...
200000000.55493997634364463556006423309624028372400503602365 m/s
Lets try another one going even faster this time space velocity is
299
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus now you are attacking yourself with the x is not y gaslighting.
Now you're just being a dickhead. I've said the same thing over and over and over and over again over many pots and you're now trying to cherry pick a single one with a typo to base your entire argument on that. Except you're an incompetent dickhead because you can't even make a link properly.
What is the justification of the 1/gamma for "time dilation" why specifically is it needed?
I've already explained repeatedly. Go back and read any of
Re: (Score:2)
I've already explained repeatedly. Go back and read any of the explanations.
Here is a collection of related statements the best I could find them.
"# Velocity change in frame of reference of something travelling parallel to
# the object not subject to any force. dt is in the rest reference frame,
# i.e. travelling at -v1 so the 1s gets time shrunk by gamma
vadd = dt / g1"
"Vadd is not 1 because the force is not applied for one second. Vadd is less than 1 and then you need to apply the velocity addition formula."
"With the correct vadd, you get the same results as using the well establish
Re: (Score:2)
OK first let's get this out of the way: you don't know what gaslighting is, and you need to read less reddit.
This magical gamma
This is the problem: you're treating physics as magic without understanding. Gamma is not magic, it stems from the constant speed of light and you can't ignore it because it's "magic".
You don't understand the difference between impulse and force. You don't understand how to transfer between frames when relativity is a significant factor. Spamming a bunch of quotes without context n
Re: (Score:2)
OK first let's get this out of the way: you don't know what gaslighting is, and you need to read less reddit.
When I Google gaslighting I get this definition "Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition."
This is exactly what you are doing here and is exactly what the entirety of your last post is about. A constant parody of derisive commentary, denying trivi
Re: (Score:2)
When I Google gaslighting I get this definition
If you think some rando you're having a heated debate with on the internet is an "abuser" then you need to take a long, hard look at your life. And what power do you think I gain over you? My only goal is for you to understand the physics enough to see that any reactionless drive is a ridiculous claim. How does that give me power over you?
I am asking you for specific information, repeatedly asking for information and all I'm getting is a wall of excuses.
Do you
Re: (Score:2)
If you think some rando you're having a heated debate with on the internet is an "abuser" then you need to take a long, hard look at your life. And what power do you think I gain over you?
I personally wouldn't use the word abuse. The core precept of gaslighting which makes it different from insults is the "sow self-doubt and confusion" aspect. It's an attempt to fuck with peoples heads.
As to why I can't answer for the people doing it. I assume most of the time the reason for the insults, derisive rhetoric, raised voices and table pounding is the attempt to assert leverage / dominance over the other guy. Not by the power of their argument but thru diversion and rhetorical device.
I have provided you one reason and one reason only. You are computing k.e. in the rest frame but using time in the moving frame. That is invalid because you are mixing frames. You need to compute the time in the frame in which you're computing k.e..
Say I add
Re: (Score:2)
I personally wouldn't use the word abuse.
Right, so not gaslighting then.
Does it matter how much time has passed if the measurement is taken after the velocity of rest frame has been increased by 1m/s? If so why do you believe this to be the case?
Let's say you apply a force of 1N for some unit of time. Does it matter how much time? If not, why do you believe that to be the case.
This isn't at all what I'm doing. I'm measuring KE from the observers frame after calculating relativistically (taking time dilatio
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so not gaslighting then.
I reject the notion "abuse" as I would call it is a requirement for gaslighting.
Does it matter how much time has passed if the measurement is taken after the velocity of rest frame has been increased by 1m/s? If so why do you believe this to be the case?
Let's say you apply a force of 1N for some unit of time. Does it matter how much time? If not, why do you believe that to be the case.
Yes time matters if you stipulate only a fixed amount of force can be applied. For example 1N for 2 seconds adds 2 m/s to rest frame where 1N for 1 second only adds a 1m/s.
This is completely different from my question. I'm not talking about an amount of force for an amount of time I'm talking about accelerating a spaceship by a single m/s.
If I add a single m/s to the rest frame do you believe it matters how long it took to acc
Re: (Score:2)
What are you afraid of? That without relativity and the confusion of gamma to hide behind you will see that I am in fact correct? Offer still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you afraid of? That without relativity and the confusion of gamma to hide behind you will see that I am in fact correct? Offer still stands.
I'm not opening any new fronts. It's taking forever to get basic data from you as is. I'm no closer to understanding despite repeated attempts to even parse let alone understand what the purpose of this 1/gamma is.
What I want to know clearly and with supporting examples is what "1m/s isn't applied to the rest frame, because the 1N force isn't applied for 1 second." is even supposed to mean.
I would also appreciate knowing precisely what data entered into the online calculator or retrieved from it were wrong
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not opening any new fronts.
I would have thought that someone who so confidently handles relativity would understand that the this is a limiting case of the existing discussion (i.e. exactly the same front with some complexity removed) not a "new front". In other words the fact you think it's a new front strongly demonstrates you are arguing about something you do not understand.
What I want to know clearly and with supporting examples is what "1m/s isn't applied to the rest frame, because the 1N force is
Re: (Score:2)
Which bit don't you understand? Do you not understand the first half which you wrote or that time dilation exists.
There is no time dilation to calculate in in the rest frame and it is fully accounted for in the observers frame. I'm REPOSTING relevant portion of my previous message which was IGNORED in its ENTIRETY below:
This isn't at all what I'm doing. I'm measuring KE from the observers frame after calculating relativistically (taking time dilation into account) what their new velocity would be after 1m/s is applied to the rest frame.
And there's the problem: 1m/s isn't applied to the rest frame, because the 1N force isn't applied for 1 second.
Can you provide an example of what exactly you are trying to say or expand on it because the above reads to me like counterfactual gibberish. I can't make heads or tails out of it.
When adding a single m/s to the rest frame of the rocket ship would you agree I could do this in any number of equivalent w
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide an example of what exactly you are trying to say or expand on it because the above reads to me like counterfactual gibberish. I can't make heads or tails out of it.
You have real trouble understanding that a 1N force applied to a 1kg object for 0.5s yields only 0.5m/s.
Either answer my question or don't.
Your question was "why would a reactionless drive be a perpetual motion machine".
Re: (Score:2)
You have real trouble understanding that a 1N force applied to a 1kg object for 0.5s yields only 0.5m/s.
Where did the .5 seconds and .5m/s come from when I said 1m/s?
If I add 1 m/s to the rest frame of a rocket ship travelling at 10m/s do you believe this can be achieved with a force of 1N for 1 second?
If I add 1 m/s to the rest frame of a rocket ship travelling at 200,000,000 m/s do you believe this can be achieved with a force of 1N for 1 second?
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying 1m/s, but WHY do you keep saying 1m/s.
In answers to your questions:
1. Yes to a good approximation.
2. If the second is in the system rest frame (not the rocket) then no.
Why are you so reluctant to analyse a Newtonian approximation of your original question? Outs simpler because there's no time dilation.
I'm now going to ask you another question. Forget the filament. Assume you have a 1 Kg object travelIng at 0.999C. You can compute it's k.e.. Let's say you run a photon drive consuming 3e8J, to
Re: (Score:2)
2. If the second is in the system rest frame (not the rocket) then no.
I clearly and unambiguously indicated it was the rest frame of the rocket.
Recall what was asked "If I add 1 m/s to the rest frame of a rocket ship travelling at 200,000,000 m/s do you believe this can be achieved with a force of 1N for 1 second?"
Please answer the question from the perspective of the rest frame of the rocket as indicated.
I'm now going to ask you another question. Forget the filament. Assume you have a 1 Kg object travelIng at 0.999C. You can compute it's k.e.. Let's say you run a photon drive consuming 3e8J, to generate 1Ns of impulse, which according to you increases the speed by 1m/s.
Absolutely not. I never asserted any such thing and was always careful to make this explicitly clear in my remarks to avoid just this confusion.
When a m/s is added to the
Re: (Score:2)
There's no point addressing the other points when I can get to the heart of the matter:
The rocket thruster.
You use 300,000,000 J and according to your maths you an increase in k.e. of 6,698,534,443J? That's a massive violation of the laws of thermodynamics right there. Your maths is allowing 6.7e+09J to be created from a mere 3e+08J. That is a massive violation of the laws of thermodynamics. How on earth can you keep claiming your maths is correct when you get free energy?
I have no interest in changing the
Re: (Score:2)
There's no point addressing the other points when I can get to the heart of the matter:
Do you intent to ever answer my question? I've provided all the figures you asked for in my previous message and yet a simple rhetorical question that requires no arithmetic at all asked now repeatedly is being left unanswered.
"If I add 1 m/s to the rest frame of a rocket ship travelling at 200,000,000 m/s do you believe this can be achieved with a force of 1N for 1 second?"
I would appreciate an answer. I would also like to know why the 1 m/s entered into the projectile field of the online calculator is t
Re: (Score:2)
You've already made it quite clear you believe this is a massive violation
No you are the one who believes it, not I. the "thought experiment" (it's pretty perverse to give something so simply such a moniker) involves:
1. An object moving very fast
2. With a directed source of light on board.
In this very simple setup, it is your maths which gives free energy, ergo you are the one who believes in free energy. I on the other hand know your maths is bunk because it gives free energy. Until you can explain to me
Re: (Score:2)
In this very simple setup, it is your maths which gives free energy,
Irrelevant, not my math, does nothing of the sort.
1. An object moving very fast
2. With a directed source of light on board.
And an infinitely long filament whose position in space can most certainly never ever ever be leveraged as a source of potential energy.
ergo you are the one who believes in free energy.
Again the circular arguments.
I on the other hand know your maths is bunk because it gives free energy.
Online calculators are using the same equations and getting the same results as me. Presence of v^2 should be a big honking clue stick your intuition is incorrect yet you persist with the circular arguments.
And not only that you can't even point out what is wrong with the equations myself, the o
Re: (Score:2)
There's no filament in the latest setup: I already said that. All you have is:
1. An object moving at 0.999C
2. A light source.
So where does the kinetic energy come from? 3e+08 comes from the light, but the rocket gains 6.7e+9 according to you.
Energy must be conserved. The sum of energies before must equal to the sum of energies after.
So where is the 6.4e+09 J before the engine runs? Where is it stored?
Unless you can explain where that energy is stored we end up at this choice:
1. Free energy exists in this un