A revolutionary propulsion system

[asps]

Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system


We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion system
SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the final
purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the Moon
and Mars.

The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather
than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).

PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
(using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail i.e.
the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
propulsion system.

One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical
rockets).

There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm

[Uncle Al]

asps wrote:
>
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
[snip]

> One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
> the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
> ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical
> rockets).
[snip]

Perpetual motion machine of the first kind plus a reactionless drive.
Bull****.

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Space is homogeneous and isotropic. By Noether's theorem linear and
angular momenta therefore must be conserved. Time is homogeneous. By
Noether's theorem energy therefore must be conserved.

Hey stooopid: Local symmetries create conservation laws through
Noether's theorem,

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html
http://www.emmynoether.com/
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html

A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time,
and the reverse. A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises
if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous
transformation.

1.To each continuous symmetry of an action there corresponds a
conserved quantity because of the Euler-Lagrange equations of the
Lagrangian, and the reverse.
2.To each gauge symmetry of an action there corresponds an identity
among Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian, and the reverse.

A physical system with a Lagrangian invariant with respect to the
symmetry transformations of a Lie group has, in the case of a group
with a finite (or countably infinite) number of independent
infinitesimal generators, a conservation law for each such generator,
and certain "dependencies" in the case of a larger infinite number of
generators (General Relativity and the Bianchi identities). The
reverse is true.

Go back and disprove mathematics, then restate your "invention." Ha
ha ha.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

[asps]

"Uncle Al" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> asps wrote:
> >
> > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
> [snip]
>
> > One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and
that
> > the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
> > ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the
chemical
> > rockets).
> [snip]
>
> Perpetual motion machine of the first kind plus a reactionless drive.
> Bull****.

false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy are
conserved:
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm


> http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
>
> Space is homogeneous and isotropic. By Noether's theorem linear and
> angular momenta therefore must be conserved. Time is homogeneous. By
> Noether's theorem energy therefore must be conserved.

what you say is not general ...we have ALL experiments that prove the
contrary

>
> Hey stooopid: Local symmetries create conservation laws through
> Noether's theorem,

we showed PNN theory to several italian industries
http://www.asps.it/enti.htm
and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica a
topic of http://www.asps.it

>
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html
> http://www.emmynoether.com/
> http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
> http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
>
> A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time,

balle

> and the reverse.

balle

>A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises
> if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous
> transformation.

methaphysics ........ that don't want to see PNN experiments .........
methaphysics i.e. pre-galilean use of mind .....
the only way to change the reality is the experiment .....
http://www.asps.it/occhiale.htm

E.Laureti

[Mu-Pi]

"asps" > wrote in message
...
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
<SNIP>

Hello crackpot.

[John Sefton]

asps wrote:
> "Uncle Al" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>
>>asps wrote:
>>
>>>Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and
>
> that
>
>>>the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
>>>ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the
>
> chemical
>
>>>rockets).
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Perpetual motion machine of the first kind plus a reactionless drive.
>>Bull****.
>
>
> false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy are
> conserved:
> http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm
>
>
>
>>http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
>>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
>>
>>Space is homogeneous and isotropic. By Noether's theorem linear and
>>angular momenta therefore must be conserved. Time is homogeneous. By
>>Noether's theorem energy therefore must be conserved.
>
>
> what you say is not general ...we have ALL experiments that prove the
> contrary
>
>
>>Hey stooopid: Local symmetries create conservation laws through
>>Noether's theorem,
>
>
> we showed PNN theory to several italian industries
> http://www.asps.it/enti.htm
> and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica a
> topic of http://www.asps.it
>
>
> http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html
>
>>http://www.emmynoether.com/
>>http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
>>http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf
>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
>>
>>A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time,
>
>
> balle
>
>
>>and the reverse.
>
>
> balle
>
>
>>A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises
>>if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous
>>transformation.
>
>
> methaphysics ........ that don't want to see PNN experiments .........
> methaphysics i.e. pre-galilean use of mind .....
> the only way to change the reality is the experiment .....
> http://www.asps.it/occhiale.htm
>
> E.Laureti
>
>
Don't worry about Al.
He wouldn't believe it even if he
got a ride in it.
He's a dinosaur- you know- one brain
in the head and one in the tail. Unfortunately
the brain in his coccyx has been so traumatized
by incoming that it's permanently in control.
John

[asps]

"Mu-Pi" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
> "asps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
> <SNIP>
>
> Hello crackpot.
>

http://www.asps.it/gotha.htm

[asps]

"John Sefton" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
....snip.....
> >
> > we showed PNN theory to several italian industries
> > http://www.asps.it/enti.htm
> > and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica
a
> > topic of http://www.asps.it
> >
> >
> >
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html
> >
> >>http://www.emmynoether.com/
> >>http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
> >>http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf
> >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
> >>
> >>A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time,
> >
> >
> > balle
> >
> >
> >>and the reverse.
> >
> >
> > balle
> >
> >
> >>A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises
> >>if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous
> >>transformation.
> >
> >
> > methaphysics ........ that don't want to see PNN experiments .........
> > methaphysics i.e. pre-galilean use of mind .....
> > the only way to change the reality is the experiment .....
> > http://www.asps.it/occhiale.htm
> >
> > E.Laureti
> >
> >
> Don't worry about Al.
> He wouldn't believe it even if he
> got a ride in it.
> He's a dinosaur- you know- one brain
> in the head and one in the tail. Unfortunately
> the brain in his coccyx has been so traumatized
> by incoming that it's permanently in control.
> John

......Al is "the ....... arrogance of mathematical physicists giving priority
to formalism against empirical facts....." http://www.asps.it/gotha.htm
.................
he is like the dinosaur priests of Santo Uffizio that don't want to see the
moon mountains in the Galileo telescope.........
so there is no mean to convince him .....
but only to wait that the evolution make the work....

[Harry Conover]

"asps" > wrote in message >...
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
>
>
> We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion system
> SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the final
> purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the Moon
> and Mars.
>
> The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
> electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather
> than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).
>
> PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
> (using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail i.e.
> the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
> source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
> propulsion system.
>
> One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
> the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
> ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical
> rockets).
>
> There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm

Wow, an Italian Wacko! I didn't think Italy allow them, at least not
to post on Internet sci newsgroups.

Harry C.

[Uncle Al]

asps wrote:
>
> "John Sefton" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
> >
> ...snip.....
> > >
> > > we showed PNN theory to several italian industries
> > > http://www.asps.it/enti.htm
> > > and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova Astronautica
> a
> > > topic of http://www.asps.it
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.trans/english/mort186.html
> > >
> > >>http://www.emmynoether.com/
> > >>http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
> > >>http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy511/section3.pdf
> > >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html
> > >>
> > >>A conserved quantity derives from each symmetry commuting with time,
> > >
> > >
> > > balle
> > >
> > >
> > >>and the reverse.
> > >
> > >
> > > balle
> > >
> > >
> > >>A divergence-free current (conserved property) arises
> > >>if the Lagrangian or the action is invariant under continuous
> > >>transformation.
> > >
> > >
> > > methaphysics ........ that don't want to see PNN experiments .........
> > > methaphysics i.e. pre-galilean use of mind .....
> > > the only way to change the reality is the experiment .....
> > > http://www.asps.it/occhiale.htm
> > >
> > > E.Laureti
> > >
> > >
> > Don't worry about Al.
> > He wouldn't believe it even if he
> > got a ride in it.
> > He's a dinosaur- you know- one brain
> > in the head and one in the tail. Unfortunately
> > the brain in his coccyx has been so traumatized
> > by incoming that it's permanently in control.
> > John
>
> .....Al is "the ....... arrogance of mathematical physicists giving priority
> to formalism against empirical facts....." http://www.asps.it/gotha.htm
> ................
> he is like the dinosaur priests of Santo Uffizio that don't want to see the
> moon mountains in the Galileo telescope.........
> so there is no mean to convince him .....
> but only to wait that the evolution make the work....

Go ahead, reduce your "invention" to practice. Ha ha ha. All talk,
no walk - just like a Coriolus thruster.
A Coriolus thruster chugs along a horizontal track and it even rises
up a vertical track. If you put it in a small (keel)boat it moves the
boat through the water without touching the water or tossing mass.
The bunko is then to solicit major investments for a Coriolus thruster
hovercraft or space propulsion.

A Coriolus thruster is an inefficient reaction engine. It has to push
against something (the boat will move at an angle, same as if it were
under sail and summing sail and keel vectors). If you dangle one from
a string it doesn't go anywhere - it spins in place like a whirling
dervish, and there is nothing in physical reality that will change
that short of hooking it to something that can push back. Cf:
helicopter. You either have counter-rotating top fans, or a side fan,
or you don't go anwyhere.

You are either world class stupid or a second class crook. Whatever
you have, it will do nothing floating in free space. If your math
says otherwise, go back and find your idiot error. Go ahead, reduce
your "invention" to practice. Ha ha ha. Like Podkletnov, it can only
work absent people who are hostile to its intrinsic impossiblity.

Physics is a series of innternally self-consistent axiomatic
mathematical constructs bounded by empirical falsification. It
contains no internal errors, git. If you wish to do something clever
you don't have many choices:

1) Empirically counterdemonstrate a founding postulate of existing
theory,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

2) Cleverly violate a boundary condition in existing theory,

Planck's constant (h, enforces uncertainty in measurement; h-bar is
the fundamental unit of action), Newton's constant (Big G, scales
gravitation), and lightspeed (c, enforces information transfer delay)
define physics:

? h=h G=G c=infinity
mechanics,
electrostatics: h=zero G=zero c=infinity
classical physics: h=zero G=G c=infinity
quantum mechanics: h=h G=zero c=infinity
special relativity: h=zero G=zero c=c
general relativity: h=zero G=G c=c
quantum field theory: h=h G=zero c=c
Theory of Everything,

3) Evolve a superset of theory that does not contradict foregoing
observations, then goes further.


What you have, fool, is ludicrous ****.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

[Robert J. Kolker]

asps wrote:
> One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
> the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
> ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical
> rockets).

I am underwhelemed. Where and when was this Amazing Electrical Rocket
tested? Documentation? Vetting? Have independent knowlegable observers
verified you claim? Or is this just another piece of KrackPot (tm) Bull****?

Bob Kolker

[Kaido Kert]

"asps" > wrote in message >...
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
> There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm

Anyone cared to calculate Baezian CI on this one yet ? Just skimming
over, i'd give it about 300, give or take a hundred.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/%63ra%63k%70%6Ft.html

-kert

[Sam Wormley]

asps wrote:
>
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
>
> We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion system
> SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the final
> purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the Moon
> and Mars.
>
> The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
> electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather
> than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).
>



Reality Check: Has the Second Law Been Falsified
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-09/reality-check.html

Pushing the Second Law to the Limit
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html

Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html

[asps]

"Uncle Al" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> asps wrote:
> >
> > "John Sefton" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > ...
> > >
> > ...snip.....
> > > >
> > > > we showed PNN theory to several italian industries
> > > > http://www.asps.it/enti.htm
> > > > and they said that it might work ..... read our issue Nova
Astronautica
> > a
.........snip
>
> Go ahead, reduce your "invention" to practice.

SC2.12 is only practice and experiments.
We needn't to spend words for it.
It superates the tests on ballistic pendulum, torsional pendulum, arm scale.
We are open to test it in all the ways that the scientific team of a
financer want.
Your idiotic examples and theories on everything are ****.

E.Laureti

http://www.asps.it

[asps]

"Robert J. Kolker" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
>
> asps wrote:
> > One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and
that
> > the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
> > ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the
chemical
> > rockets).
>
> I am underwhelemed. Where and when was this Amazing Electrical Rocket
> tested?

SC2.12 has no in common with a rocket .
It reacts on the travelling e.m. field with momentum greater than E/c and ,
at now it works in UHF range
It superates the tests on ballistic pendulum, torsional pendulum, arm scale.
We are open to test it in all the ways that the financer i.e the scientific
team of the financer want..
It was tested in Asps labs.
We want to test it too in other labs under the procedure
http://www.asps.it/propnn.it

>Documentation? Vetting? Have independent knowlegable observers
> verified you claim?

We want all type of independent knowlegable observers ...but in the form
http://www.asps.it/propnn.it there it is the way to avoid loss of PNN
know-how at zero cost for who declare the interest to finance its industrial
developments.
The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid loss
of information before its commercialization.
All what we can say is in the Asps issue Nova Astronautica issn:0393-1005
since 1981

>Or is this just another piece of KrackPot (tm) Bull****?

We want to convince everybody about PNN only by experiments ..... but we
want to show such experiments first only to the scientific team of who want
the industrialization of PNN , i.e. to them want or develop or buy our
prototipe.
In http://www.asps.it/propnn.it is prevented that we want no money if our
prototype is not AT THE END OF ALL THE TESTS a revolution in space
transportation systems.

> Bob Kolker

E.Laureti
http://www.asps.it

[Alan Erskine]

"asps" > wrote in message
...
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system

No English page, yet you are on English-speaking newsgroups. Why no
translation? You have done this before (posting to these groups) for some
years now, but still no English page. When I can read your page in
*English*, I will be better able to comment.

--
Alan Erskine
alanterskine(at)hotmail.com

Iraq, America's new Vietnam

[Alan Erskine]

There *is* an English version, but the link was near the bottom of the page.
Apologies. I recommend placing that link near the top of the page.

--
Alan Erskine
alanterskine(at)hotmail.com

Iraq, America's new Vietnam

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
> "asps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
>
> No English page, yet you are on English-speaking newsgroups. Why no
> translation? You have done this before (posting to these groups) for some
> years now, but still no English page. When I can read your page in
> *English*, I will be better able to comment.
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanterskine(at)hotmail.com
>
> Iraq, America's new Vietnam
>
>

[Charleston]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote:

> There *is* an English version, but the link was near the bottom of the
page.
> Apologies. I recommend placing that link near the top of the page.


I think Americans are arrogant; but some Aussies have us beat. It is bad
enough that you did not bother to scroll down a little way on this guy's
link page to find an English version, but your apology does not seem sincere
when you turn right around and ask him to move the English language version
up the page and change the name of the thread. Of course that disassociates
your apology with the original context, intended or not.

It seems kind of ironic that you put him down for something he did correctly
when in fact it turns out to be your own error that is at issue.

> Iraq, America's new Vietnam

The above phrase is another example of a conclusion drawn before all of the
facts are IMO. If Iraq is America's Vietnam, then what was 911 (hint rhymes
with Earl Barber).

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Paul F. Dietz]

asps wrote:

> false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy are
> conserved:
> http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm

Obviously wrong, idiot.

Paul

[asps]

"Paul F. Dietz" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> asps wrote:
>
> > false SC2.12 (i.e. PNN) is not a reactionless drive momentum and energy
are
> > conserved:
> > http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep7/ep7-asps.htm
>
> Obviously wrong, idiot.

Is wrong this too ? :
[5] Kirk T. McDonald ,Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544
(Nov. 15, 1998) [PDF]The Transverse Momentum of an Electron in a Wave 1
Problem 2 ... Formato file: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Versione HTML
Page 1. The Transverse Momentum of an Electron in a Wave Kirk T. McDonald
Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 (Nov.
15, 1998) 1 ... www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/transmom2.pdf -


Obviously not all have your opinion

Overall aren't of your opinion PNN experiments : the alone thing that has
physical meaning

> Paul

E.Laureti

[Franz Heymann]

"asps" > wrote in message
...
> Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
>
>
> We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion
system
> SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the
final
> purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the
Moon
> and Mars.
>
> The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
> electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p
greather
> than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).
>
> PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
> (using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail
i.e.
> the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
> source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
> propulsion system.
>
> One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
> the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
> ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the
chemical
> rockets).
>
> There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm

A fifty-fifty mix of gobbledegook and bull****.

Franz Heymann

[Paul Blay]

"Franz Heymann" wrote ...
>
> "asps" > wrote in message
> >
> > There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
>
> A fifty-fifty mix of gobbledegook and bull****.

Ah, but is it _non-Newtonian_ bull**** that can propel with
no loss of reaction mass?

Obviously asps has tapped into the fabric of usenet itself
where no matter how much bull**** is removed more will
always remain.

With such a dangerous method I can only pray there will
be no leaks.

[Christopher]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:21:25 +0100, "asps" >
wrote:

>Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
>
>
>We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion system
>SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the final
>purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the Moon
>and Mars.
>
>The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
>electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather
>than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).
>
>PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
>(using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail i.e.
>the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
>source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
>propulsion system.
>
>One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
>the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
>ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical
>rockets).
>
>There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
>
Err dosn't Newtons Third law of Motion have to be obeyed to get any
movement going.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[Christopher]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:29:05 -0800, "Charleston"
> wrote:

<snip>
> If Iraq is America's Vietnam, then what was 911 (hint rhymes
>with Earl Barber).

Err America getting a taste of the real world. :-\



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[Joe Strout]

In article >,
"asps" > wrote:

>> The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid
loss
> of information before its commercialization.

....which of course misses the entire point of patenting. If you have a
new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should
patent it. Then you can commercialize it and keep all the profits to
yourself for many years to come. If you don't, then not only do you
have a hard time getting venture capital, but also anybody else could
come up with the same idea. Then they'll patent it, and legally be able
to prevent YOU from commercializing it (unless you pay them to license
the design just like anybody else).

Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure
bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners.

> We want to convince everybody about PNN only by experiments ..... but we
> want to show such experiments first only to the scientific team of who want
> the industrialization of PNN , i.e. to them want or develop or buy our
> prototipe.

Yes yes, very convenient, I swear it works but I won't prove it to you
unless you promise to give me money. As others have suggested, you're
either a crook trying to swindle naive investors out of their money, or
you're intellectually challenged. If you're not a crook, then give up
this fruitless approach, patent the damn thing, and publish all the
details for everyone in the world to see. Then, in very little time,
you'll either be rolling in more cash than you know what to do with, or
someone will have pointed out to you exactly how you have deceived
yourself, and you can get on with more productive pursuits.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

[Robert J. Kolker]

Christopher wrote:

>
> Err America getting a taste of the real world. :-\

Sad, but true. The world is a very nasty place and until we achieve
nastiness sufficient for our survival as a nation, we are in deep doo doo.

Evolution does not take prisoners. The last one standing is the winner.

Bob Kolker

[Paul Blay]

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote ...
>
> Christopher wrote:
>
> > Err America getting a taste of the real world. :-\
>
> Sad, but true. The world is a very nasty place and until we achieve
> nastiness sufficient for our survival as a nation, we are in deep doo doo.
>
> Evolution does not take prisoners. The last one standing is the winner.

I'm glad you saw fit to give us warning. I'll be digging my bomb shelter
at once.

Don't you think it's at least possible that a "nastiness arms race" is one
where the winner will also have lost?

[Brian Gaff]

OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it
without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.

At the moment, I feel that it is one of those ideas based on a theory that
has an error some place.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Christopher" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:21:25 +0100, "asps" >
| wrote:
|
| >Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
| >
| >
| >We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion
system
| >SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the
final
| >purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the
Moon
| >and Mars.
| >
| >The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
| >electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p
greather
| >than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).
| >
| >PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
| >(using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail
i.e.
| >the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
| >source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
| >propulsion system.
| >
| >One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
| >the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
| >ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the
chemical
| >rockets).
| >
| >There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
| >
| Err dosn't Newtons Third law of Motion have to be obeyed to get any
| movement going.
|
|
|
| Christopher
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++
| "Kites rise highest against
| the wind - not with it."
| Winston Churchill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/03

[Robert J. Kolker]

Brian Gaff wrote:
> OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it
> without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.

Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation
of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain
unchanged under translation in space.

So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you
also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the
same as the physical laws that hold THERE.

Bob Kolker

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Joe Strout" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "asps" > wrote:
>
> >> The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid
> loss
> > of information before its commercialization.
>
> ...which of course misses the entire point of patenting. If you have a
> new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should
> patent it. Then you can commercialize it and keep all the profits to
> yourself for many years to come. If you don't, then not only do you
> have a hard time getting venture capital, but also anybody else could
> come up with the same idea. Then they'll patent it, and legally be able
> to prevent YOU from commercializing it (unless you pay them to license
> the design just like anybody else).

Actually it doesn't quite work this way.

To patent something, you have to reveal your trade secrets. Which allows
others to learn what you're doing. (In theory they can't replicate it, but
it might give them new ideas.) In addition patents eventually expire.
Trade secrets are just that, secret. For example, Coca-Cola's formula is a
trade secret, not patented. If it were patented, at this point anyone could
make an exact duplicate w/o fear of prosecution. However, as a trade
secret, if someone came up with one that was identical (not just in flavor,
but makeup) then they'd have to prove they had not received the formular
from Coke and if they had, they'd be in big trouble.

In addition, if someone patents something that has been publically discussed
previously, they in theory lose the paten due to prior art.


>
> Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure
> bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners.

Actually at least in the US, the only thing you absolutely have to
demonstrate is a perpetual motion machine. (Which they don't claim this to
be, though in reality I think that's actually what it would have to be in
order to work.)

I think it simply comes down to this being BS.

>
> > We want to convince everybody about PNN only by experiments ..... but we
> > want to show such experiments first only to the scientific team of who
want
> > the industrialization of PNN , i.e. to them want or develop or buy our
> > prototipe.
>
> Yes yes, very convenient, I swear it works but I won't prove it to you
> unless you promise to give me money. As others have suggested, you're
> either a crook trying to swindle naive investors out of their money, or
> you're intellectually challenged. If you're not a crook, then give up
> this fruitless approach, patent the damn thing, and publish all the
> details for everyone in the world to see. Then, in very little time,
> you'll either be rolling in more cash than you know what to do with, or
> someone will have pointed out to you exactly how you have deceived
> yourself, and you can get on with more productive pursuits.

Well, this is easy enough to do. Someone can offer to pay them money if it
works. If it doesn't, no money, or worse a lawsuit for fraud.

Somehow I bet they'll wiggle out of that too.


>
> ,------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
> | http://www.macwebdir.com |
> `------------------------------------------------------------------'

[Joe Strout]

In article >,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > wrote:

> > ...which of course misses the entire point of patenting. If you have a
> > new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should
> > patent it. Then you can commercialize it and keep all the profits to
> > yourself for many years to come. If you don't, then not only do you
> > have a hard time getting venture capital, but also anybody else could
> > come up with the same idea. Then they'll patent it, and legally be able
> > to prevent YOU from commercializing it (unless you pay them to license
> > the design just like anybody else).
>
> Actually it doesn't quite work this way.
>
> To patent something, you have to reveal your trade secrets. Which allows
> others to learn what you're doing. (In theory they can't replicate it, but
> it might give them new ideas.) In addition patents eventually expire.

Right. I know this, and didn't say anything that contradicts it.

> Trade secrets are just that, secret.

Right. Until somebody else comes up with the same thing. Then you have
no protection. Again, pretty much what I said above.

> In addition, if someone patents something that has been publically discussed
> previously, they in theory lose the paten due to prior art.

Right. A good reason to patent it BEFORE discussing it, instead of
discussing it first, as this asps fellow seems to (partly) due.

> > Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure
> > bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners.
>
> Actually at least in the US, the only thing you absolutely have to
> demonstrate is a perpetual motion machine. (Which they don't claim this to
> be, though in reality I think that's actually what it would have to be in
> order to work.)

Right. I think a patent examiner would probably think the same thing,
again, at least in the US -- and I don't know what the standards are in
other countries.

> I think it simply comes down to this being BS.

Agreed.

> Well, this is easy enough to do. Someone can offer to pay them money if it
> works. If it doesn't, no money, or worse a lawsuit for fraud.

That's what they're asking for, and I think it's a silly approach.
Nobody's going to invest even the time it takes to properly examine a
machine that violates accepted laws of physics based only on someone's
claim that they've invented such a wonderous device but can't give you
any details until you promise some money.

Patent it first, publish the details widely, let other physicists build
the damn thing and agree that it works, and THEN you'll have venture
capitalists beating a path to your door.

Unless, as you say, the thing is just BS, in which case the outcome of
this approach would be nothing but public embarassment. I suspect
that's why asps doesn't take this approach.

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

[Brian Gaff]

"Robert J. Kolker" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Brian Gaff wrote:
| > OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain
it
| > without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.
|
| Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation
| of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain
| unchanged under translation in space.
|
| So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you
| also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the
| same as the physical laws that hold THERE.
|
| Bob Kolker
|

But that is silly, as you can show that they do.

This sounds like the same idea that suggests that a spinning gyro can
precess without the energy loss contributing to the movement.

I think I'll go lie down now.

Brian
--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/03

[Brian Gaff]

Hang on, I was busy there winding a superconducting coil around the moon and
lining the far side with solar cells to attract metal objects from the Earth
to the moon....:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Robert J. Kolker" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Brian Gaff wrote:
| > OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain
it
| > without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.
|
| Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation
| of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain
| unchanged under translation in space.
|
| So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you
| also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the
| same as the physical laws that hold THERE.
|
| Bob Kolker
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/03

[Christopher]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:46:45 -0600, Joe Strout > wrote:

<snip>
>That's what they're asking for, and I think it's a silly approach.
>Nobody's going to invest even the time it takes to properly examine a
>machine that violates accepted laws of physics based only on someone's
>claim that they've invented such a wonderous device but can't give you
>any details until you promise some money.
>
>Patent it first, publish the details widely, let other physicists build
>the damn thing and agree that it works, and THEN you'll have venture
>capitalists beating a path to your door.
>
>Unless, as you say, the thing is just BS, in which case the outcome of
>this approach would be nothing but public embarassment. I suspect
>that's why asps doesn't take this approach.

The above reminds me of that substance a British guy invented some
years ago that he called 'Starlight' it was a sort of white ceramic
which could withstand tempretures of 7,000K, and the guy was holding
out the secret for n million pounds. No-one at NASA has a clue as to
how it was made, as the guy had all the samples and was withholding
them from analysis till he gets some money, but NASA bright sparks who
have seen Starlight in action so to speak were convinced that
Starlight could do what the guy said it could. No idea what became
of him or Starlight, as I've not heard a thing for years regarding it.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[asps]

"Joe Strout" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> In article >,
> "asps" > wrote:
>
> >> The full and complete version of SC2.12 hasn't been patented to avoid
> loss
> > of information before its commercialization.
>
> ...which of course misses the entire point of patenting. If you have a
> new invention which you think will revolutionize the world, you should
> patent it.

patents in Italy are copied ... then you must defend your rights by lawyers
and tribunals : the civil judgements have a period (in the better event) of
about ten years .... during the period you MUST PAY LAWYERS!
We can patent SC2.12 only when we have money for lawyers


>Then you can commercialize it and keep all the profits to
> yourself for many years to come.

Then the money is necessary "suddenly" too to make judgements against
aerospace industries "of the world" that for the simple fact that they want
to survive to PNN ...to survive to PNN revolution such industries must copy
and sobstitute "suddenly" PNN to rocketry.....
The alone alternative for such industries is that PNN never go out of
Asps....

I hope you can understand....

E.Laureti

........snip...
>
> ,------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
> | http://www.macwebdir.com |
> `------------------------------------------------------------------'

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Joe Strout > wrote:
>> In addition, if someone patents something that has been publically discussed
>> previously, they in theory lose the paten due to prior art.
>
>Right. A good reason to patent it BEFORE discussing it, instead of
>discussing it first, as this asps fellow seems to (partly) due.

One exception: in the US -- and *only* in the US as far as I know --
there is a one-year grace period after publication during which patent
filing remains possible. This is why the RSA encryption algorithm was
patented only in the US.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Stephen]

It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

I agree that the best thing to do is take this along to a reputable
university and have the experiments repeated.

There are no such things as hard and fast laws created by man. We may
sometimes get them right, but we can never be totally sure.


I very much hope that we can invent a reactionless drive and maybe the
universe has some quirks that we can exploit.

Remember we might all be living in someone elses simulation of
reality, so anything can happen.

[Alan Boswell]

Joe Strout wrote:
>
>
> Of course, I suspect the real problem is that this "invention" is pure
> bunk and would most likely be rejected by the patent examiners.
>

Since when did patent examiners reject pure bunk?

[Alan Boswell]

Stephen
On the contrary Newton's laws of motion have been proved right. Cars
move, aeroplanes fly, people go into space, craft hav been sent outside
the solar system. All on Newton's laws of motion.
Alan




Stephen wrote:
>
> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
>

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> Since when did patent examiners reject pure bunk?

"bunk" as in "physically impossible because it violates fundamental
principles" (as in this case)? All the time. "bunk" as in "is trivial,
has been in use for decades in the industry, etc."? Sometimes, but
with much higher probability outside the US of A.

Jan

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation, and
relativity turn into Newton's laws in the low-speed limit. As such,
Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong - he extended him into territory not
previously considered, as it were.

Jan

[[email protected]]

In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
>> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
>> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
>
>Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation

More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

[Edward Green]

wrote in message >...
> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
> >
> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
>
> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.

For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.

[[email protected]]

In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
wrote in message >...
>> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
>> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
>> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
>> >
>> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
>>
>> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
>
>For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.

No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):

1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
translation.
2) The generator of spatial translations.
3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
homogenous.

Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
mv becomes a "derived result"

Keep in mind that electromagnetic waves *do* have momentum, *within*
classical physics, even though they're massless. That should suffice
to make it clear that p = mv is *not* "the classical definition" of
momentum, just a special case.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

[Edward Green]

wrote in message >...
> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
> wrote in message >...
> >> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
> >>
> >> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
> >
> >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.
>
> No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
> Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
> mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
> Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
> defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):
>
> 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
> translation.
> 2) The generator of spatial translations.
> 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
> homogenous.
>
> Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
> again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
> not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
> generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
> mv becomes a "derived result"

And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic
version becomes yet another special case? Sigh.

For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems
sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may
appreciate it.

I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time
because drowning in a sea of fools.

[[email protected]]

In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
wrote in message >...
>> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
>> wrote in message >...
>> >> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
>> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
>> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
>> >>
>> >> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
>> >
>> >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.
>>
>> No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
>> Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
>> mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
>> Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
>> defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):
>>
>> 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
>> translation.
>> 2) The generator of spatial translations.
>> 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
>> homogenous.
>>
>> Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
>> again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
>> not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
>> generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
>> mv becomes a "derived result"
>
>And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic
>version becomes yet another special case? Sigh.

That's the idea. Instead of defining a whole bunch of things, you
define a lagrangian and the rest follows. Mind you, once you follow
this route, the various conservation laws become pretty much
tautologies. Which is fine.
>
>For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems
>sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may
>appreciate it.

A very small fraction of a percent.
>
>I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time
>because drowning in a sea of fools.

We're all ignorants, to this or other extent. The true division line
is not between ignorant and knowledgeable but between those who are
aware of their areas of ignorance and those who don't.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

[Edward Green]

wrote in message >...
> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
> wrote in message >...
> >> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
> >> wrote in message >...
> >> >> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
> >> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> >> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
> >> >>
> >> >> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
> >> >
> >> >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.
> >>
> >> No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
> >> Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
> >> mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
> >> Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
> >> defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):
> >>
> >> 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
> >> translation.
> >> 2) The generator of spatial translations.
> >> 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
> >> homogenous.
> >>
> >> Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
> >> again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
> >> not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
> >> generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
> >> mv becomes a "derived result"
> >
> >And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic
> >version becomes yet another special case? Sigh.
>
> That's the idea. Instead of defining a whole bunch of things, you
> define a lagrangian and the rest follows. Mind you, once you follow
> this route, the various conservation laws become pretty much
> tautologies. Which is fine.

Someday I still hope to understand Noether's theorem, and discover, as
you say, that it is pretty much a tautology. Indeed, I've had the
feeling from time to time -- as I'm sure you have -- that when one
really understands something, most of the theorems become pretty much
tautologies. In fact, you could take that as a measure of
understanding.

> >For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems
> >sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may
> >appreciate it.
>
> A very small fraction of a percent.

I was going to go on to compare physics to, say, classical music. The
percentage of humanity who can perform or compose on a world class
level might be similar -- but at least some aspect of music is
accessible to a much wider audience. But with physics,
"accessibility" is about synonymous to "performance" ... though,
hmm...

The parallels actually run rather well. In both you fields have
technically competent performers who have made but don't really seem
to get it, and will never produce anything beautiful. You might also
have something analogous to literal performance in a great lecturer --
I will presume Feymann was one -- who may elevate a prepared audience
just temporarily beyond their ability. They really will understand
for a few minutes, though it will slough off soon enough.

> >I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time
> >because drowning in a sea of fools.
>
> We're all ignorants, to this or other extent. The true division line
> is not between ignorant and knowledgeable but between those who are
> aware of their areas of ignorance and those who don't.

Yeah ... and the truly rich man is the one who knows his own net
worth, or something: but it helps if that net worth is in 8 or 9
figures. :-)

[[email protected]]

In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
wrote in message >...
>> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
>> wrote in message >...
>> >> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
>> >> wrote in message >...
>> >> >> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
>> >> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
>> >> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
>> >> >
>> >> >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.
>> >>
>> >> No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
>> >> Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
>> >> mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
>> >> Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
>> >> defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):
>> >>
>> >> 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
>> >> translation.
>> >> 2) The generator of spatial translations.
>> >> 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
>> >> homogenous.
>> >>
>> >> Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
>> >> again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
>> >> not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
>> >> generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
>> >> mv becomes a "derived result"
>> >
>> >And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic
>> >version becomes yet another special case? Sigh.
>>
>> That's the idea. Instead of defining a whole bunch of things, you
>> define a lagrangian and the rest follows. Mind you, once you follow
>> this route, the various conservation laws become pretty much
>> tautologies. Which is fine.
>
>Someday I still hope to understand Noether's theorem, and discover, as
>you say, that it is pretty much a tautology. Indeed, I've had the
>feeling from time to time -- as I'm sure you have -- that when one
>really understands something, most of the theorems become pretty much
>tautologies. In fact, you could take that as a measure of
>understanding.

Quite often true. I recall Feynman writing, about math graduate
students he knew in Princeton, that in their terminology all
mathematical statements belonged to one of the categories: "trivial"
or "nobody knows".

>
>> >For such a beautiful creation of man, the full power of physics seems
>> >sparsely supported: a fraction of a percent of the population may
>> >appreciate it.
>>
>> A very small fraction of a percent.
>
>I was going to go on to compare physics to, say, classical music. The
>percentage of humanity who can perform or compose on a world class
>level might be similar -- but at least some aspect of music is
>accessible to a much wider audience. But with physics,
>"accessibility" is about synonymous to "performance" ... though,
>hmm...

Well, music is different, even though ...
>
>The parallels actually run rather well. In both you fields have
>technically competent performers who have made but don't really seem
>to get it, and will never produce anything beautiful. You might also
>have something analogous to literal performance in a great lecturer --
>I will presume Feymann was one -- who may elevate a prepared audience
>just temporarily beyond their ability. They really will understand
>for a few minutes, though it will slough off soon enough.
>
All true. Still, music is different, because it is not being
processed by the intellect, it addresses the brain on some deeper, more
primordial level. You get different combinations of tones and rhytms
evoking very powerful emotions, even even you don't know anything
about creating or performing music. With physics, well, you can't
really bypass the intellect. So, you need a sufficient amount of
intellectual baggage ...

>> >I am ineluctably ignorant, and only feel differently from time to time
>> >because drowning in a sea of fools.
>>
>> We're all ignorants, to this or other extent. The true division line
>> is not between ignorant and knowledgeable but between those who are
>> aware of their areas of ignorance and those who don't.
>
>Yeah ... and the truly rich man is the one who knows his own net
>worth, or something: but it helps if that net worth is in 8 or 9
>figures. :-)

Hey, I would settle for 7, with no argument:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

[Edward Green]

wrote in message >...
> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
> wrote in message >...
> >> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
> >> wrote in message >...
> >> >> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:

> >> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> >> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
> >> >>
> >> >> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
> >> >
> >> >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.
> >>
> >> No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
> >> Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
> >> mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
> >> Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
> >> defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):
> >>
> >> 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
> >> translation.
> >> 2) The generator of spatial translations.
> >> 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
> >> homogenous.
> >>
> >> Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
> >> again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
> >> not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
> >> generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
> >> mv becomes a "derived result"
> >
> >And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic
> >version becomes yet another special case? ...

Ok ... just for fun, if it's not too much trouble in ascii, would you
be able to write down the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle?

[John Ordover]

Well, to be fair, Newton's Laws have been shown to have a small amount
of imprecision that doesn't cause problems until you get to
significant percentages of the speed of light.


Alan Boswell > wrote in message >...
> Stephen
> On the contrary Newton's laws of motion have been proved right. Cars
> move, aeroplanes fly, people go into space, craft hav been sent outside
> the solar system. All on Newton's laws of motion.
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> Stephen wrote:
> >
> > It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
> > many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
> >

[[email protected]]

In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
wrote in message >...
>> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
>> wrote in message >...
>> >> In article >, (Edward Green) writes:
>> >> wrote in message >...
>> >> >> In article >, Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= > writes:
>
>> >> >> >> It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
>> >> >> >> many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.
>> >> >
>> >> >For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.
>> >>
>> >> No, why? You may say that it is not the definition which was used by
>> >> Newton but yes, it *is* the definition which was used in Newtonian
>> >> mechanics, by the time it reached maturity (with the Hamiltonian and
>> >> Lagrangian formulation). Momentum, in classical machanics, is ***not***
>> >> defined as mv. It is defined as (pick one, they are equivalent):
>> >>
>> >> 1) The end-point variation of action under infinitsimal spatial
>> >> translation.
>> >> 2) The generator of spatial translations.
>> >> 3) The (vector) quantity of motion which is conserved when space is
>> >> homogenous.
>> >>
>> >> Other, alternative and equivalent formulations are possible. And,
>> >> again, this is *not* a relativistic definition, but classical. It is
>> >> not a "replacement" for Newton's original formulation, just a
>> >> generalization, and within this generalized formulation the original
>> >> mv becomes a "derived result"
>> >
>> >And using this more powerful concept of momentum, the relativistic
>> >version becomes yet another special case? ...
>
>Ok ... just for fun, if it's not too much trouble in ascii, would you
>be able to write down the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle?

Not a trouble, just had to look it up, has been a while. Anyway, it
comes up to

L = -m*c^2*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

or (nicer) in units where c = 1,

L = m/gamma

Note that if you take the case of v << c and develop the expression
above in Taylor series, you get

L = -m*c^2(1 - (1/2)*v^2/c^2 + ....)

= -m*c^2 + (1/2)*m*v^2 + ...

where the ... denotes higher order (negligible) terms. This
recapitulates the classical free particle Lagrangian, except for the
constant term which is of no consequence. The Lagrangian is only
defined up to a constant (in fact even up to an arbitrary function of
time alone).

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"