From: alain245@videotron.ca   
      
   On Aug/26/2022 at 14:14, Doctor Who wrote :   
   > On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:01:06 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:   
   >   
   >> Doctor Who  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:   
   >>>> He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the   
   >>>> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the   
   >>>> dipole, but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known   
   >>>> laws of preservation of momentum.   
   >>>   
   >>> whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.   
   >>   
   >> If it isn't reactionless, it's not new physics, unlike your claims.   
   >   
   > if it wasn't reactionless, or at least action > reaction, there would   
   > be no thrust.   
      
   So you say but we and professor Marrucci (see Otto J. Makela's post at   
   11:17) disagree. Your device really seems to provide some thrust which   
   can be explained with Newtonian physics.   
      
      
   Alain Fournier   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)