kcdodd wrote:Yes, exactly. But we are talking not of whether energy is constant, but whether the rate of change of the energy is the same in every reference frame. So, if chemical energy is being converted into kinetic energy at a rate of 10J/s in one frame, it has to be 10J/s in every other reference frame too. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. Again, not including SR.
Your answer back from Dr. Paul Bailey, PhD from NASA JSC:
Yes, of course, Carter is indeed correct. You must consider both masses when considering total power output of the engine. Notice my toy model from Monday, the 28th of February, where I point out that you must consider BOTH of the masses if you are considering the power of the “engine’ which in that case was some sort of conceptual linear pusher with constant force, for ease of calculation. A mass driver.
I was indeed mixing the two different power definitions together.
More later, duty calls..
Carter, if you're interested to apply your skills in a more useful way than debunking this lowly philosopher's misunderstandings, I can connect you with others doing this work. Those of us at Mach Aleph Devices are completely concerned with conservation. We don't want to be taken as ever proposing anything that violates conservation.
You've shown in many posts that you're interested but skeptical of M-E physics. If you'd like to be included in a more private forum, where these issues can be addressed in more detail, and where you can be better apprised of the issues in M-E work, I'd like to connect you.
This offer is to Carter only. Please don't others write me. Carter, if you have a curiosity about how M-E physics works, please write me privately at Therofax@aol.com with a couple sentences concerning your background and interest, and I'll see if I can't connect you with those who know much better than I do.