> Mike writes:
> > I never said it violates conservation of momentum. My claim is that the
> > input energy is expended in a single direction, it uses more energy than
> > it produces in thrust, so there is no violation.
> I thought your gadget was something which you could put in empty space,
> turn it on, and it would start accelerating off in some direction,
> without shooting anything back the other way. It acquires net momentum,
> doesn't it?
>From energy. This is why Cramer beleives it can work with masses working
at near relativistic velocities, because of the dissonance between
momentum and velocity at those speeds. If there is such a dissonance,
then Special Relativity also violates your strict interpretation of
conservation of momentum...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:08 MDT