Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
Next: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jun 2010 06:49 On Jun 7, 4:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You are this credential-less armchair, blow-hard who tries to elevate your standing by attacking the person (me) who has made a greater contribution to the understanding of science than all other physicists combined. You, like PD, are in the bottom 2.5% of incurable status quo junkies. Good luck in trying to climb up the hill that I am King of. NoEinstein > > On 6/7/10 3:34 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > About the time I decided to disprove Einstein (by > > invalidation of the M-M experiment and rubber rulers) > > There are USENET Posters that understand relativity > theory and many that don't, including you. > > Relativity theory is self consistent and has no contradictions. > In fact, there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a > prediction of relativity. > > Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jun 2010 06:56 On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Dear Sue: The NIchols Radiometer got too bogged down with precision, while not being conclusive about the basic science behind the design of the detector. Thermal mechanics isn't involved in turning the Crookes Radiometer. My gravity swing experiment is a much more sensible design. NoEinstein A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing > > On Jun 7, 7:41 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > Beyond this thermodynamics remains open in my book. > > This is a bit disturbing at this point in the thread. > Reynolds explained Crooks radiometer with > ~thermodynamics~ . > > Your discussion with Timo seems to be about > Nichols radiometer. The distinction was > made earlier in the thread but you will be > talking past one another if you are not > about the same device and effect. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer > > Apologies if I am covering old ground but > it is a long thread and I got here late. > > Sue... > > > > > > > > > - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jun 2010 07:05 On Jun 7, 6:15 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Dear Sue: As I say to everyone, here, I don't read links to the words of others (unless you wrote the link). I wish to have the discussions be in black and white. Please give a simple paraphrase of your link, and I will reply. Intense photon emissions can move some of the ether that is in the path. And moving ether can exert forces on masses. But that pressure is NEVER from the photons. Photons are energy, only. NE > > On Jun 7, 3:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 9:02 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: "Momentum", first and foremost, requires that there be a > > moving MASS. Photons are MASSLESS, and thus are without momentum. > > So, there is nothing to be... "reversed". NoEinstein > > See equation 2.2 > "Radiation Pressure > and Momentum Transfer in Dielectrics: > The Photon Drag Effect" > Rodney Loudon, Stephen M. Barnett, C. Baxter > > http://www.colin-baxter.com/academic/research/downloads/prl063802.pdf > > Sue...
From: Sue... on 8 Jun 2010 07:09 On Jun 8, 6:31 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 8, 7:48 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 8, 2:30 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > > > > On Jun 7, 3:55 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > [a very quick point, will return later] > > > > > > Of course the energy hasn't disappeared! Momentum isn't energy, energy > > > > > isn't momentum! They're not the same thing! > > > > > When the momentum is absorbed is not the energy likewise absorbed? > > > > No! (I think "absorbed" is the wrong word here.) > > > > Bounce a ball off a wall. KE_in = KE_out. No loss of KE. Change in > > > momentum = 2 * momentum_in. > > > Is that ~consistent~ with the wikipedia page?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Theory > > > If absorbed, the traversed volume is illuminated > > once. > > > If reflected, the traversed volume is illuminated > > twice. > > Sure it's consistent. Energy density with reflection is double the > energy density with absorption, pressure is likewise double. OK... I thought we were on the same ~page~ with that. > (Not 1/3 since not omnidirectional.) I am interpreting the 1/3 to be an allowance for the fact that the pyramidal volumes are only confined at the ends. Areas of 1/9 are easly seen in this figure. You'll have to imagine the lines for 1/3. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html Risking accusation of practising numerology without a licence, the factor 1/3 appears prominently here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant Sue...
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jun 2010 07:15
On Jun 7, 7:37 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Why are you mad? Momentumor force variance due to velocityis measured in pounds. Energy, or force-delivery potential, is measured in pounds. Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws of Motion, correctly understood, say that energy and momentum are closely kin. But since you are talking only about massless photons, your arguments are misplaced. Light is energy only; never force! NE > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > > He seems to think that when you attribute all of a photons energy to > > momentum that somehow the energy is independent of that momentum. > > No! Absolutely not! > > ENERGY IS NOT MOMENTUM, AND MOMENTUM IS NOT ENERGY! > > THIS IS ELEMENTARY NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, THAT THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT! > > TO SAY SOMETHING HAS BOTH KINETIC ENERGY AND MOMENTUM IS NOT THE SAME AS > "ATTRIBUTING THE ENERGY TO MOMENTUM"! > > And, although energy and momentum are different, they're not independent > either! Stop a classical particle, and it has zero momentum and zero KE. > > -- > Timo |