George Dishman wrote:
"Richard Saam" <rdsaam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:H6Ssf.374269$zb5.335600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George Dishman wrote:
Richard Saam wrote: Mechanism 2 requires an energy barrier (Arrenhius
Activation Energy)
of m*c^2 at the object - lattice interface.
This is not an unfounded assumption.
It is complete rubbish, the lattice and craft are
in contact.
Your term 'rubbish' defies reality.
It refers specifically to talking of "Arrenhius
Activation Energy" when considering conservation
of momentum. There is no threshold.
How do you know?
There is a threshold or there is not.
Two options.
From your desk, you cannot dictate to reality which option.
Catch a stick of dynamite in your hand as thrown to you.
Mechanism 1.
There is contact and acceleration (you and stick of dynamite).
Thank Alfred Nobel for putting some appropriate activation energy
at the contact interface
so that you don't loose your hand and life
and catastrophically accelerate your body and dynamite parts
by mechanism 2.
Have you ever studied different reaction pathways (mechanisms)
commonly used in chemistry? Why limit yourself to one(1)
when reasoning dictates 2,3 maybe 10 for analysis.
Mechanism 1
a = Cd*Area*rho*v^2 / (2*M)
v<<c
does not fit the data
Exactly.
Mechanism 2
You explained "Mechanism 2" as being what is
described on a page about work. That page only
warns not to get confused between the energy
put into an engine and the work done by the
engine. They are different because engines are
not 100% efficient.
a = Cd*Area*rho*c^2 / M
Is wrong.
It is not wrong. It empirically fits the data
Your derivation used energy as a
vector
No, Work was calculated as F*dx=m*v*dv
using proper vector notation.
and most of the rest was a string of
unwarranted assumptions.
Logic was well formed. You choose to ignore.
I've pointed out
the numerous errors several times and I don't
intend to do so again.
Don't do it as long
you keep denying that
the empirical fact that:
a = Cd*Area*rho*c^2 / M
as a basis for discussion
fits the data.
It does not fit the data. Your description of
the source predicts the acceleration should be
aligned with the CMBR dipole for both craft
yes and after calculation
F*dx=m*v*dv
acceleration is proven
a = Cd*Area*rho*c^2 / M
not to be aligned with CMBR
while reality is that they accelerations are
bothe directed towards the Sun.
accelerations are directed to the observer
I explained
that fully last time.
Reality wins
Yes, your suggestion is shown to be wrong.
a = Cd*Area*rho*c^2 / M
is shown to be right
and
Logic dictates study
of Mechanism 2
while understanding the limitations
of Mechanism 1.
There is no "Mechanism 2", just your misreading
of a K12 level web page.
no miss reading
F*dx=m*v*dv
a = Cd*Area*rho*c^2 / M
Richard
|