Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > So there is no such thing as explosives, exothermal chemical reactions, fusion,
> > fission, radiation, etc? You are claiming that the only momentum in the universe
> > is that which is pre-existing? Thats rather thin.
> Michael, Michael, it is beneath you to use arguments easily dismissible
> with high-school mathematics. Momentum is a /vector/ quantity. If an
> unexploded bomb has zero momentum, the sum of the momentum of every
> particle during and after the explosion is also zero /in any given
> It is quite possible that momentum conservation might be broken under
> some conditions--I'm not up enough on current high-energy physics to
> argue that. But you are ducking and weaving here more than Clinton in
> a depostition. You are evading the simple and honest admission that
> what you claim the Lorrey Drive does violates conservation of momentum
> as it is currently understood. It might work nonetheless, and we won't
> know until we build one, but you can't evade the fact that it does
> violate conservation as proposed.
I would stipulate that at sub-relativistic speeds it violates commonly accepted
principles of conservation of momentum. For anything else, I personally would
take the word of Prof. Cramer over most anyone on this list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:10 MDT