Re: Reactionless Redux
- From: "John D. Gwinner" <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:41:21 -0700
"Logan Kearsley" <chrono.surfer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_2kMh.6778$YD.479@xxxxxxxxxxx
The trouble is that in some frames (such as one which is moving at
relativistic velocities wrt the launch site in the same direction as the
space craft is accelerated) will appear to be slowing down and losing
energy, and other frames won't see the same magnitude of increase or
decrease. Reaction drives make up for this by putting the balance in
whatever it was that you pushed off against.
Which, to drag in another thread, solves our Anti-gravity generator issue;
the 'base' (generator or planet it's attached to) is the one experiencing
the balance.
So ... large base with generator, small spaceship, balance (reaction) goes
to the planet. Small ship with generator, large planet being approached,
balance goes to the planet. (I think it wouldn't depend on how the field is
produced, i.e. either of our concepts in the previous thread).
== John ==
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reactionless Redux
- From: Logan Kearsley
- Re: Reactionless Redux
- References:
- Reactionless Redux
- From: Knobby
- Re: Reactionless Redux
- From: Logan Kearsley
- Reactionless Redux
- Prev by Date: Re: Resource Energy is developing a system that will store solar heat
- Next by Date: Re: Nested Buckyballs
- Previous by thread: Re: Reactionless Redux
- Next by thread: Re: Reactionless Redux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
