Primitive Radiometer Studies
in [Math]
|
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 20 May 2010 06:55 On May 19, 10:17 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On May 19, 10:11 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > can one tell a priori that a black surface will absorb more > > infrared, since it is invisible in the first place? > > > I wish folks like Y'know and y'Know would at least *try* > > to write their syllogistical theories in terms of, > > "There Are No Photons?" > > just this afternoon, a lecturer showed a slide > > with a graph of "phonons from 0 to over 1 teracycles;" > > is that the sound of light? > > Indeed! I see what you are saying. > > Sue... > http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Hey Sue. It would be great to have your input on this. On the one hand if you take photon momentum as ballistic momentum from e = h f then all of the energy is physical momentum as well, and the sun's energy would be knocking things over daily at 1300 W/m/m. Somehow the claim is that this power converts to a radiation pressure of 4.6uPa, which I am still trying to find documentation on. One simple attack on radiation pressure is to ask whether conservation of energy holds for this situation. A perfect reflector should return all of its energy toward the source for maximum 'effect' which is claimed to be double that of a black surface. Where then is the energy for acceleration coming from? - Tim
From: spudnik on 20 May 2010 15:57 sensible heat is infrared light; are there any oscillatory modes of molecules in the teracycle ranges, or can subharmonics be induced?... isn't it true that "by definition," since atoms have only one center of mass, then atoms have no other oscillatory modes than the various ones of their electronic orbitals (or, what is raman spectroscopy) ?? --Pi, as many places as you can tolerate in as many bases as you can handle; or, just use the surfer's canonical value & get feedback from the usergroups.
From: spudnik on 20 May 2010 23:32 dood, my valu of pi is lots simpler to calculate than yours -- seven cans of beer & a string! thus & so: nice cartoon; is there only one beamsplitter in Sagnac? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and a half of compasses; dyscusss
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 14:42 ah, yes; the perfect reflector (lightsail) would have to actually "adsorb" the momentum of the puffy little photons, so that ... so that -- so, there! - Show quoted text - thus: I mean, they don't even have to be next to each other (technical defintion of "next" to follow .-) > It astounds me .. that is, the corollary that parallel lines that do not go to infinity never converge, like in FLT, there never is a success. thusNso: I can see that you're a victim of "General Semantics and the Nine E-primes." what ever in Hell you think that you were saying, it does seem that "one period of lightwaving," howsoever properly defined, would be a sufficient unit of h-bar as a scalar of time -- if not a dimensionless constant (a "scalar" should be a dimensionless quantity to count some thing). did that make any sense at all? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: Thomas Heger on 21 May 2010 14:52
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 21, 12:28 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: >> >> >> > In that this portion of theory is reliant upon > thermodynamics I am happy to throw my hands up in the air in terms of > existing theory. I do feel more and more strongly that those claims of > a radiation pressure are false, particularly in terms of generating a > stable DC acceleration. The ballistic theory of light may be a lie. > > Did you ever have a woozy feeling in high school when they taught you > about the electromagnetic spectrum and how all of these differently > named energies are actually the same thing? Well, I did, and I think > we have to go back to some of the assumptions that we were taught and > consider invalidating them. This is the only proper way to yield any > simplification. The only other way is to add to the accumulation, and > the pile has grown deep enough already. Hammer on the fundamentals and > where a split occurs then break it open. There will lay an invalid > assumption. > Well, cracking a hole into the wall would be nice, but I have some doubt about the possibility. My starting point was actually different. Think about an atom of say hydrogen. That is simply a proton and an electron. Those have different masses, but the same charge. I wondered for quite a while, what 'charge' actually is, or what could behave in such a way, that makes one negative thing swirl around a positive one. The positive one is tiny, but very massive, while the negative one is light, pointlike and occupies a lot of space. I found rotations would fit. You could have two directions. One, that would contracts and one that expands. That is more like angular momentum, that transfers into speed and slows again to angular momentum. The problem with the em-force for me is/was, that is should somehow fill the atom with a strong forcefield, that should have nodes within the particles. But that would mean for a pointlike particle infinite field-strength inside. So I tried something different, where the particles are nodes of a three-dimensional standing wave. These are build as kind of interference pattern of two antagonistic forces, that rotate in opposite directions, where the 'real thing' are not the patterns, but the 'medium' in between. This would generate also inertia. as this standing wave has a center and we could ascribe the stability to that center, while the electron is the center of a smaller circle, that swirls around the proton. But in this picture both particles are 'one thing', because 'real' is that kind of abstract medium in between. Greetings Thomas |