Prev: PNAC of course said it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks".
Next: Arctic sea ice extent
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 1 Jul 2010 11:16
Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:26 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>> No, it's the other way around. It gives a simple explanation for the
>>> force on a perfect reflector, not (by itself) for the force on an
>>> absorber. For an absorber, you have to deal with the absorbed energy.
>>> For a perfect reflector, there is no absorbed energy. For a perfect
>>> reflector, the rate of doing work must equal the loss of power due to
>>> the Doppler. There's no other source of energy, and there is nowhere
>>> else for the "lost" energy to go.
>> But isn't this a chicken and egg type of problem? We cannot claim the
>> Doppler shift to be the cause of the motion of the vane. Yet you are
>> attributing the work done to this effect. There is something missing in
>> this analysis.
>
> The "cause" of the work is exactly what is missing here.
>
> Consider a classical ball bouncing off a reflector. KE_in - KE_out -
> energy lost if collision is not elastic tells you the work done, but
> doesn't tell you how the work is done. For that, you might model the
> ball as an elastic body, described by some value of Young's modulus or
> bulk modulus. Perhaps that isn't much of an explanation, so you could
> consider the interaction between the atoms that hold the ball
> together, and the interaction between the ball atoms and the reflector
> atoms that stop interpenetration. There's a lot of detail you can go
> into in order to explain the force. The energy analysis only tells you
> the work done, not the details of how the work is done.
>
> For an EM wave, the Lorentz force will give you the details. What kind
> of reflector? For a perfect conductor, start with a non-perfect
> conductor, and find the fields and currents in the material. Find the
> Lorentz force density on the medium. Find the time average. Take the
> limit as conductivity -> infinity. Done! Same numerical result as from
> the energy analysis, and explanation of the details, at the cost of a
> lot more effort. Not happy with the simple model of the medium where
> we describe it electromagnetically by permittivity and conductivity?
> Fancier models are available (e.g., see Drude model of conductivity).
> Make it more complicated, and stop where desired.
>
>> As I think of a Nichol's vane on a quartz fiber torsion
>> spring then it is turned into a relativistic problem under this
>> analysis, yet the doubling required no such analysis. Is this new
>> physics? If so, then I do not believe it is complete. If anything this
>> new physics is a foot in the mouth to the old analysis.
>
> No new physics, just conservation of energy and momentum.
> Relativistic? In a sense, but works fine with Galileian relativity, as
> long as the reflector moves slowly compared to the speed of light.
>
>> Let's suppose a Crookes type of device, so that the experiment could be
>> done on a lab table. Upon getting the vanes to high speed the laser
>> light, being red shifted substantially, should yield ever more drive to
>> the device. If we could get a 50% redshift, then we'd be taking 50% of
>> the laser energy and converting it into mechanical energy, or
>> acceleration of the vane. Should this work?
>
> Why shouldn't it work? But be careful with language! You write "more
> drive", but note well that this means "more power", not "more force".
> With the device as described, you'd get _less_ force as it spins
> faster (but still more power). Why less force? Unlike the previous
> analysis of the redshift/blueshift, which was done with a chnage of
> coordinate system, you're talking about a real motion of the vane
> relative to the source, so a redshift seen by the vane, so a reduction
> in power as seen by the vane.

Yet still returning to the source is 50% of what came from it (at the
normal incidence angle), and so we have entered a conundrum. Where did
the other 50% go? I do see the argument for diminishing return on the
vane as you state it here, and I likewise see the argument from the
source perspective as well. We are nearly building a Demon.

I never have appreciated the random coordinate system change that you
constructed, and I see no reason to enter it into this conversation
other than to cloud the discussion. The redshift which you and I have
been speaking of for the last few posts has nothing to do with a
randomly chosen frame.

I suppose that the actual answer will be in terms of electron flow, and
that the abstracted analysis is causing the confusion. This is a point
where little pseudomassive balls hitting plates no longer makes sense.
These balls disappear, or come back as less pseudomassive balls.

I think we both ought to be careful with our language here. This is a
very difficult problem.

- Tim

>
>> If the above is believable, then we have isolated this effect away from
>> the photon momentum haven't we?
>
> "Isolated away from" means what? Photon energy and momentum (or the
> classical equivalent) and conservation of energy and momentum still
> describe it.
>
> --
> Timo
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 2 Jul 2010 09:52
OK Noein. Congratulations for having the courage to share an alternative
theory here in the open.

As I understand it the sole reason to deny any ether theory is that
light's velocity does not appear to be sensitive to it. We should
probably consider the analogy in sound waves, which are ethereal in that
they require a material medium to propagate, as far as we understand.
Already we do extend the Doppler behavior of sound over to light, so
that the nuances here are not straightforward. Who has actually done the
sound propagation experiment to verify that the wave velocity is
sensitive to the material's velocity? Well, I haven't heard of this
experiment formally, but if we construct a velocity of sound experiment,
out of a steel rod suspended on pillows and some sensors and could get
the precision down to say one meter per second resolution, then put this
experiment on a train traveling 30 km per second then we would have
numbers. There is actually some trouble here in striking the damn rod at
the right time from the ground and getting sensors to sense properly
from the ground. The idea is that the sound velocity will appear from
the ground measuring equipment to be off by 30,000 m/s.

There is some criticism that can be laid onto the assumption of the
matter wave (sound) that could cross over since all matter is electrical
in nature according to existing theory. Should we compensate within the
measurement for the velocity of the train? This would certainly defeat
the test, and it does seem reasonable from a professional perspective to
do so; otherwise to spec the speed of sound in steel will have to spec a
velocity figure at which the spec was taken.

At points like this within these theories every method deserves
scrutiny, and the assumptions that we make must likewise be scrutinized
to the point of everybody saying uncle, as in, enough already, we buy
it. Then too it is still possible that many have cried 'uncle' because
they never fully understood the theory, or shared invalid assumptions.
One thing I feel very comfortable stating is that in the modern
educational climate there is no room to challenge the curriculum and so
we are essentially trained to be zombies at this level of scrutiny.

I appreciate the freedoms that you take, but will argue for fundamental
constructions. Particularly by breaking the existing constructions
carefully some morsel may remain that is the crux of a new theory. This
morsel may recover existing theory and then a little bit more, though
the context will be so shifted as to appear wrong to the zombies.

We all suffer this zombie syndrome, and the only thing more difficult
would be starting from a blank slate, at which point we would be quite
pleased with ourselves if we just made it up to Galileo's level, or
Newton's level, and let's not forget Newton's propensity for decrypting
his bible. That the man who invented calculus would attempt such seems
utterly impossible, yet this is more the human state than most care to
admit. We carry on an attitude of science devoid of the human nature,
yet it is the human nature that specifies our scientific abilities,
mimicry and all.

When will we know if a theory is correct? This is somewhat the absurdity
of the human condition, for if we admit that the decision is individual
in nature then we do not have a science. This helps explain the
experimental requirement- that a theory is not a valid theory until it
provides some observable test. In this corner we have what are called
theoretical details which are merely curve fitting the experimental
data. The experimentalists are discovering effects far beyond existing
theory and they have the upper hand. The cold physics experiments are
way beyond our level of discussion. We do need more dynamics within the
fundamental basis. It is nice that so many concepts break down to
product relations, but this is not enough... until the product relations
take on more dynamics.

- Tim

NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jun 30, 9:26 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Tim: The "electromagnetic analogy of light" mentioned at the
> bottom of your reply was the erroneous theory for explaining how light
> could move in the ether. For the most part, photons are jumbles of
> polar IOTAs (the smallest energy units in the Universe). The jumbles
> have 'poles' in different directions, negating having light be
> attracted by magnets, or influenced by... fields. The IOTAs can
> orient pole to pole to form chains which encircle the Universe perhaps
> 'infinite' times. But because the chains are fragile, those tend to
> form away from places with very high photon emissions. The Earth's
> magnet field gets around this problem by laying claim to certain
> designated 'flux line' zones that the light passes around. When solar
> flares break the flux lines, there can be power disruptions on Earth
> until they can knit back together. Photons travel perfectly well
> across the Swiss Cheese voids between the galaxies, which have little
> or no ether. Such voids, as for the entire Universe, are bounded by
> an electromagnetised meniscus of the polar IOTAs. � NoEinstein �
From: NoEinstein on 2 Jul 2010 12:20
On Jul 2, 9:52 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
Dear Tim: Wake up, man! Everything that you keep discussing as...
"theory" has already been correctly explained by my New Science. The
ether is ENERGY. That's the building block of everything in the
Universe. Since matter is just "tangles of energy", the ether is most
concentrated close to where the masses are. The smallest energy unit
in the Universe is the IOTA. By logic, those must be POLAR.
Everything that rotates is polar, too, depending on the position of
the observer relative to the rotation—clockwise, above;
counterclockwise, below (or vise versa). Since 'c' is the Universal
EMISSION velocity (not maximum velocity) of light, then, by logic the
rotating IOTAs must have a tangential velocity of 'c'. Think of the
IOTAs like those contra-rotating automobile tires used to "throw"
footballs at the same velocity every time. Photons of light, in
passing between the spinning IOTAs get nurtured along at the constant
velocity 'c'.

Light traveling faster than 'c' (due to the velocity of the source)
won't be slowed down to 'c' until there have been many, many contacts
with the IOTAs. But eventually all light slows to 'c', or gets
speeded back to 'c'. The color of light isn't independent of the
velocity, only the spacing of the photons. Doppler shifts vary the
color up or down from the intrinsic color. The increasing red shift
with increasing distances is due to the aging of light (wedging apart
of the photons by other 'passing' photons), NOT due to the increasing
expansion of the Universe. By logic I've shown that gravity requires
photon emission, out, from bodies. Since Black Holes have zero photon
emissions, then, they are very cold bodies (no wiggle room for the
particles) and thus have ZERO gravity. And since gravity requires
continuity of the ether, then, most gravity influences STOP at the
Swiss Cheese voids in the ether between galaxies. No gravity for
Black Holes means no gravity for a Big Crunch nor for a Big Bang—which
never happened! Tim, most of what has passed for science isn't! Try
to understand that my New Science is NOT ideas thrown of for
conversation starters, but statements of facts. — NoEinstein —
>
> OK Noein. Congratulations for having the courage to share an alternative
> theory here in the open.
>
> As I understand it the sole reason to deny any ether theory is that
> light's velocity does not appear to be sensitive to it. We should
> probably consider the analogy in sound waves, which are ethereal in that
> they require a material medium to propagate, as far as we understand.
> Already we do extend the Doppler behavior of sound over to light, so
> that the nuances here are not straightforward. Who has actually done the
> sound propagation experiment to verify that the wave velocity is
> sensitive to the material's velocity? Well, I haven't heard of this
> experiment formally, but if we construct a velocity of sound experiment,
> out of a steel rod suspended on pillows and some sensors and could get
> the precision down to say one meter per second resolution, then put this
> experiment on a train traveling 30 km per second then we would have
> numbers. There is actually some trouble here in striking the damn rod at
> the right time from the ground and getting sensors to sense properly
> from the ground. The idea is that the sound velocity will appear from
> the ground measuring equipment to be off by 30,000 m/s.
>
> There is some criticism that can be laid onto the assumption of the
> matter wave (sound) that could cross over since all matter is electrical
> in nature according to existing theory. Should we compensate within the
> measurement for the velocity of the train? This would certainly defeat
> the test, and it does seem reasonable from a professional perspective to
> do so; otherwise to spec the speed of sound in steel will have to spec a
> velocity figure at which the spec was taken.
>
> At points like this within these theories every method deserves
> scrutiny, and the assumptions that we make must likewise be scrutinized
> to the point of everybody saying uncle, as in, enough already, we buy
> it. Then too it is still possible that many have cried 'uncle' because
> they never fully understood the theory, or shared invalid assumptions.
> One thing I feel very comfortable stating is that in the modern
> educational climate there is no room to challenge the curriculum and so
> we are essentially trained to be zombies at this level of scrutiny.
>
> I appreciate the freedoms that you take, but will argue for fundamental
> constructions. Particularly by breaking the existing constructions
> carefully some morsel may remain that is the crux of a new theory. This
> morsel may recover existing theory and then a little bit more, though
> the context will be so shifted as to appear wrong to the zombies.
>
> We all suffer this zombie syndrome, and the only thing more difficult
> would be starting from a blank slate, at which point we would be quite
> pleased with ourselves if we just made it up to Galileo's level, or
> Newton's level, and let's not forget Newton's propensity for decrypting
> his bible. That the man who invented calculus would attempt such seems
> utterly impossible, yet this is more the human state than most care to
> admit. We carry on an attitude of science devoid of the human nature,
> yet it is the human nature that specifies our scientific abilities,
> mimicry and all.
>
> When will we know if a theory is correct? This is somewhat the absurdity
> of the human condition, for if we admit that the decision is individual
> in nature then we do not have a science. This helps explain the
> experimental requirement- that a theory is not a valid theory until it
> provides some observable test. In this corner we have what are called
> theoretical details which are merely curve fitting the experimental
> data. The experimentalists are discovering effects far beyond existing
> theory and they have the upper hand. The cold physics experiments are
> way beyond our level of discussion. We do need more dynamics within the
> fundamental basis. It is nice that so many concepts break down to
> product relations, but this is not enough... until the product relations
> take on more dynamics.
>
>   - Tim
>
>
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:26 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > Dear Tim:  The "electromagnetic analogy of light" mentioned at the
> > bottom of your reply was the erroneous theory for explaining how light
> > could move in the ether.  For the most part, photons are jumbles of
> > polar IOTAs (the smallest energy units in the Universe).  The jumbles
> > have 'poles' in different directions, negating having light be
> > attracted by magnets, or influenced by... fields.  The IOTAs can
> > orient pole to pole to form chains which encircle the Universe perhaps
> > 'infinite' times.  But because the chains are fragile, those tend to
> > form away from places with very high photon emissions.  The Earth's
> > magnet field gets around this problem by laying claim to certain
> > designated 'flux line' zones that the light passes around.  When solar
> > flares break the flux lines, there can be power disruptions on Earth
> > until they can knit back together.  Photons travel perfectly well
> > across the Swiss Cheese voids between the galaxies, which have little
> > or no ether.  Such voids, as for the entire Universe, are bounded by
> > an electromagnetised meniscus of the polar IOTAs.  — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Timo Nieminen on 2 Jul 2010 16:03
On Jul 2, 1:16 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 11:26 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Let's suppose a Crookes type of device, so that the experiment could be
> >> done on a lab table. Upon getting the vanes to high speed the laser
> >> light, being red shifted substantially, should yield ever more drive to
> >> the device. If we could get a 50% redshift, then we'd be taking 50% of
> >> the laser energy and converting it into mechanical energy, or
> >> acceleration of the vane. Should this work?
>
> > Why shouldn't it work? But be careful with language! You write "more
> > drive", but note well that this means "more power", not "more force".
> > With the device as described, you'd get _less_ force as it spins
> > faster (but still more power). Why less force? Unlike the previous
> > analysis of the redshift/blueshift, which was done with a chnage of
> > coordinate system, you're talking about a real motion of the vane
> > relative to the source, so a redshift seen by the vane, so a reduction
> > in power as seen by the vane.
>
> Yet still returning to the source is 50% of what came from it (at the
> normal incidence angle), and so we have entered a conundrum. Where did
> the other 50% go? I do see the argument for diminishing return on the
> vane as you state it here, and I likewise see the argument from the
> source perspective as well. We are nearly building a Demon.
>
> I never have appreciated the random coordinate system change that you
> constructed, and I see no reason to enter it into this conversation
> other than to cloud the discussion. The redshift which you and I have
> been speaking of for the last few posts has nothing to do with a
> randomly chosen frame.

Not _random_. Sit down, and do some calculations. Since you don't
believe various stuff relating to radiation momentum, just sit down
and do some classical mechanicws calculations. Are you OK with
Newtonian mechanics? Do some elastic collision problems, the same
problem in some different inertial coordinate systems. If you're up to
it, do the same for some classical "hosing" problems, like hosing a
stream of continuous fluid onto a "reflector", with no heating, no
loss of energy.

What assumptions go into this? Conservation of energy and momentum,
and that these conservation laws hold in all inertial coordinate
systems, and that (under Galileian relativity) the force and
acceleration are the same in all inertial coordinate systems.

And what conundrum? Beam loses energy due to Doppler shift, work is
done on the target because it's moving. The reduction in beam energy
is equal to the work. Where is the conundrum? Choose any inertial
coordinate system, and energy and momentum are conserved, and we see
the same force in all such systems. What is the problem, the
conundrum?

> I suppose that the actual answer will be in terms of electron flow, and
> that the abstracted analysis is causing the confusion. This is a point
> where little pseudomassive balls hitting plates no longer makes sense.
> These balls disappear, or come back as less pseudomassive balls.

What is the "actual" answer, as opposed to another answer? Is this
like your "isolated away from"?

Seriously, do you think that simplifying the problem down to the
essentials, conservation of energy and momentum, causes confusion? How
can bringing in a gloriously complex model of the behaviour of matter
down to the level of individual electrons make it simpler?
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 3 Jul 2010 09:00
Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Jul 2, 1:16 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Timo Nieminen wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 11:26 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Let's suppose a Crookes type of device, so that the experiment could be
>>>> done on a lab table. Upon getting the vanes to high speed the laser
>>>> light, being red shifted substantially, should yield ever more drive to
>>>> the device. If we could get a 50% redshift, then we'd be taking 50% of
>>>> the laser energy and converting it into mechanical energy, or
>>>> acceleration of the vane. Should this work?
>>> Why shouldn't it work? But be careful with language! You write "more
>>> drive", but note well that this means "more power", not "more force".
>>> With the device as described, you'd get _less_ force as it spins
>>> faster (but still more power). Why less force? Unlike the previous
>>> analysis of the redshift/blueshift, which was done with a chnage of
>>> coordinate system, you're talking about a real motion of the vane
>>> relative to the source, so a redshift seen by the vane, so a reduction
>>> in power as seen by the vane.
>> Yet still returning to the source is 50% of what came from it (at the
>> normal incidence angle), and so we have entered a conundrum. Where did
>> the other 50% go? I do see the argument for diminishing return on the
>> vane as you state it here, and I likewise see the argument from the
>> source perspective as well. We are nearly building a Demon.
>>
>> I never have appreciated the random coordinate system change that you
>> constructed, and I see no reason to enter it into this conversation
>> other than to cloud the discussion. The redshift which you and I have
>> been speaking of for the last few posts has nothing to do with a
>> randomly chosen frame.
>
> Not _random_. Sit down, and do some calculations. Since you don't
> believe various stuff relating to radiation momentum, just sit down
> and do some classical mechanicws calculations. Are you OK with
> Newtonian mechanics? Do some elastic collision problems, the same
> problem in some different inertial coordinate systems. If you're up to
> it, do the same for some classical "hosing" problems, like hosing a
> stream of continuous fluid onto a "reflector", with no heating, no
> loss of energy.
>
> What assumptions go into this? Conservation of energy and momentum,
> and that these conservation laws hold in all inertial coordinate
> systems, and that (under Galileian relativity) the force and
> acceleration are the same in all inertial coordinate systems.
>
> And what conundrum? Beam loses energy due to Doppler shift, work is
> done on the target because it's moving. The reduction in beam energy
> is equal to the work. Where is the conundrum? Choose any inertial
> coordinate system, and energy and momentum are conserved, and we see
> the same force in all such systems. What is the problem, the
> conundrum?

I've already stated it clearly without confusion:
"Yet still returning to the source is 50% of what came from it
(at the normal incidence angle), and so we have entered a conundrum.
Where did the other 50% go?"
You've already admitted that the vane too sees less power:
"you're talking about a real motion of the vane
relative to the source, so a redshift seen by the vane,
so a reduction in power as seen by the vane."

We have just constructed a break with conservation of energy, and in
both frames. We are seeing loss of energy in both frames. We should have
to go to the relativistic analysis of the vanes and see that the inertia
has come up quite high at a 50% redshift. Still, having gotten there,
by the conservation of energy, those vanes must be absorbing 50% of the
energy of the beam still (source perspective). Meanwhile they are doing
so while seeing the beam as 50% of the source energy (50% redshifted),
and again, these are reflective plates we are using. Can't you see the
chicken and egg conflict here? It is absurd that you would refute the
conundrum from my perspective.

Interestingly we've engaged a rotational instrument in order to achieve
this effect. You say there is no need to resolve this conflict. You also
have said that this effect is consistent with photon momentum. I believe
these both to be false statements. The construction we are discusssing
is far away from photon momentum. We are claiming to extract 50% of the
light energy mechanically. I don't honestly know what to believe, but
this is much closer to holding a mirror up to the sun and being pushed
over, which we know will not happen.

- Tim

>
>> I suppose that the actual answer will be in terms of electron flow, and
>> that the abstracted analysis is causing the confusion. This is a point
>> where little pseudomassive balls hitting plates no longer makes sense.
>> These balls disappear, or come back as less pseudomassive balls.
>
> What is the "actual" answer, as opposed to another answer? Is this
> like your "isolated away from"?
>
> Seriously, do you think that simplifying the problem down to the
> essentials, conservation of energy and momentum, causes confusion? How
> can bringing in a gloriously complex model of the behaviour of matter
> down to the level of individual electrons make it simpler?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: PNAC of course said it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks".
Next: Arctic sea ice extent