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 07:18 On Jun 7, 8:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Search: laser cutting. There are whole books written on the cutting qualities of different materials. I probably wouldn't dispute the science behind it. NE > > On Jun 1, 7:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 31, 8:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 3:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 30, 2:48 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > Dear Timo: I like that you have had a broad exposure to the world of > > > > physics. My New Physics is different in that it is based almost > > > > solely on analysis and on reason. To avoid being corrupted by the > > > > status quo, I relish the observations of valid experimentswhile > > > > always being open minded to the possibility of errors. I avoid > > > > automatically accepting the explanations, by supposed authorities, > > > > for the observed phenomena. > > > > > White and black squares are two competing gravity experiments > > > > combined into one. In the Crookes Radiometer, the black squares > > > > exhibit more repulsion from the light (or heat) source than the white > > > > squares. Reverse rotation has been observed (by others) to occur if > > > > the glass is made to be cooler than the vanes, themselves. You say > > > > The force on the vanes has been measured in vacuum, and the force is > > > > in the opposite direction to the usual Crookes radiometer thermal > > > > force. If not for friction, the radiometer in vacuum would rotate > > > > "backwards". That observation may or may not be a true analogy to the > > > > Crookes. I dont make it a point to shoehorn anyones observations > > > > unless and until I know most of the particulars. > > > > > *** I invite you to reply with a concise PARAPHRASE of how that in > > > > vacuum experiment was done. (Note: I do not read links to the words > > > > of others.) The thermal qualities of the vacuum container must be > > > > considered, as well as the thermal isolation of the white paint from > > > > the black paint, if present. Since there was no rotation, how was > > > > the force measured? > > > > > Like I have said, conclusively, massless photons, alone, exert no > > > > force on objects. What is actually happening to move small objects is > > > > that photons create a gravity effect, as explained in: > > > > > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26.... > > > > > The latter involves having the varying ether flow and density push the > > > > object in proportion to the objects cross section that is in the > > > > photon stream. Dust particles adjacent to laser beams can be seen to > > > > move in the direction of the beam. But that is due to the air > > > > molecules, and the ether being moved, together. The dust is pushed by > > > > the air gases and by the flowing ether, not by the photons. > > > > > That Wikipedia article on Radiometers mentioned that there is an > > > > induced gas flow through porous ceramic plates that is toward the side > > > > that is heated. [ Note: That is consistent with the ether flow > > > > direction predicted by my New Science. ] The rather iffy porosity of > > > > the edges of the squares in the Crookes Radiometer has, for over a > > > > century, been considered to be the primary source for the thrust. The > > > > errant rationale has been: The edges of the black squares heat, and > > > > then shoot-out, the argon atoms, causing the observed rotation. The > > > > latter concocted science, combined with Einsteins heated gas > > > > nonsense, supposedly accounts for 100% of the observed rotation of the > > > > vanes. > > > > > Photons are concentrations of energy which, in high enough > > > > concentrations, can burn through steel. Those photons dont force > > > > through the steel. You could say: They energy through the steel! > > > > Radio waves pass through steel. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Timo, Ive observed over the past month that you have, occasionally, > > > > been adversarial regarding aspects of my New Science. To the extent > > > > that you bring up valid points which I can explain to the many > > > > readers, I welcome your comments. But I dont seek to have a time > > > > consuming one-on-one conversation with you just for your edification. > > > > Though this reply is long, dont take that to be an invitation that > > > > you have been selected as the spokes-person for the status quo. > > > > Because of my obvious huge contributions to science, you should ask > > > > questions, not sit in judgment. You are welcomed to make your own > > > > +new post(s) to pontificate your science if you differ with me. > > > > Lastly, please TOP post, and limit yourself to about two paragraphs.. > > > > I really dont need to hear what you think about every little thing > > > > that Ive ever said. No more PDs are wanted, here. Thanks! > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > On May 31, 12:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Ive just learned, and provisionally accept as true, that: Radiometers > > > > > > wont rotate at all in a perfect vacuum; > > > > > > True enough, but misleading, since there is still a measurable force. > > > > > Only the friction of the bearings stops it from rotating. > > > > > > > If the devices were totally > > > > > > frictionless, the rotation would occur in the identical direction > > > > > > without that gas being there. > > > > > > This isn't true. The force on the vanes has been measured in vacuum, > > > > > and the force is in the opposite direction to the usual Crookes > > > > > radiometer thermal force. If not for friction, the radiometer in > > > > > vacuum would rotate "backwards". > > > > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer > > > > > > This reverse force due to radiation pressure was measured in 1901.. > > > > > (Published in 1901, anyway. I think Nichols and Hull did their > > > > > measurement in 1901, but Lebedev did his in1899, but didn't publish in > > > > > a journal until 1901.) > > > > > > > Photons have ZERO mass, and exert zero force upon > > > > > > striking a reflecting surface. > > > > > > Non-zero force. This has been measured. Microscopic objects can be > > > > > easily pushed around with this force. Macroscopic objects have been > > > > > levitated against gravity. It's more common to use the force due to > > > > > refraction (which is also non-zero), since then you don't cook the > > > > > object being pushed, but reflection works too. (Also absorption.)- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > No disagreement, there; provided the steel isn't too thick. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What is it about the steel that allows for different absorption for > thin and then thick? > > What is the chance order of getting absorbed? Why would more steel > atoms provide better absorption? > > If it is pure steel why would steel atoms absorb differently for > thiness or thickness. I have a problem that absorption is less > probable. How can it be made into probability? > > I want to lnow what blocks radio signals. > > MItch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jun 2010 07:27 On Jun 8, 4:50 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > Dear "k...": Einstein's relativity violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and is thus patently WRONG. Relativity (varying space-time) derived from the 'rubber ruler' explanation of that imbecile, Lorentz, for the nil results of M-M. The reason M-M produced nil results is because such had no CONTROL light course. I suggest you read some of the links to my earlier posts. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en& PD has questions about science. Can any of you help? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en& Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9 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, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Relativity theory is self consistent and has no contradictions. > > In fact, there has yet to be an observation that contradicts a > > prediction of relativity. > > While Einstein's Special Relativity is consistent in itself, it is > not > without its problems. > > And your second sentence is wrong. > > The Eotvos experiment by R. H. Dicke at Princeton demonstrated > that mass is not relativistic. > > Furthermore, there is the twin paradox. > > Now don't give me all the BS that the relativistists use to try to > resolve this paradox. > > Just tell me what twin is younger than the other when they meet > after the traveling twin has completed his/her trip and both are at > rest in what Einstein called the 'stationary system' on page 40 of > "The Principle of Relativity" copyrighted by Lorentz, Einstein, > Minkowski, and Weyl. > > Moreover, there is the paradox of rapidly rotating discs (like a > Frisbee) moving near the speed of light, wherein the physical form > must constantly change due to the tensor mechanics. And these > physcal changes must occur without generating heat, or violate > the Laws of Thermodynamics. > > D.Y.Kadoshima
From: Timo Nieminen on 8 Jun 2010 07:32 On Jun 8, 9:09 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 8, 6:31 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > (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 Sure, the atoms in a gas are moving omni-directionally. Compare with pressure due to a directed stream of particles. Geometry doesn't care about the fine details, such as whether we're talking about atoms or photons, 1/3 will do in either case. (Exercise: what is the factor equivalent ot the 1/3 for an N-dimensional space?)
From: Tim BandTech.com on 8 Jun 2010 07:34 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.) Is this your new careful use of language Timo? This 'no' is to mean that you wish to discuss the reflected case. Well, I am discussing the absorbed case. So please do not change the argument as a means of falsifying my argument. This 'No' above can be miscontrued. I will take this wording as support of my argument, for there is no actual falsification content provided here. - Tim > > Bounce a ball off a wall. KE_in = KE_out. No loss of KE. Change in > momentum = 2 * momentum_in.
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jun 2010 13:19
On 6/8/10 3:50 AM, kado(a)nventure.com wrote: > While Einstein's Special Relativity is consistent in itself, it is > not without its problems. > > And your second sentence is wrong. > > The Eotvos experiment by R. H. Dicke at Princeton demonstrated > that mass is not relativistic. > > Furthermore, there is the twin paradox. > And just how do you see the "twin paradox" as a problem for special relativity? Be specific. |