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: BURT on 9 Jun 2010 16:25 On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no > gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications > satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, > replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes > those facts. NE > > There is a round curve of gravity for energy in a circular orbit. But there is no strength of gravity to change the motion circular speed. The strength of gravity does not lie in the curve but in space flow. A circular orbit has zero gravity strength but a pre speed. You can quantify the prespeed in space for the circular orbit. Pre-speed is the motion through space independant of the strength of gravity pushing it faster or slower. Gravity gives and takes from pre-motion of falling energy in elliptical orbit MItch Raemsch
From: Timo Nieminen on 9 Jun 2010 16:26 On Jun 10, 6:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 8, 7:32 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: Photons do not exert pressure, period. Mass-less energy > never has an associated force. NE To quote you: "Energy, or force-delivery potential, is measured in pounds." Light has energy, yes? According to you, light has force-delivery potential, yes? So why can't it exert a force? How many pounds is 1.3kJ of light? How about that Sirius A and Sirius B, huh? How come you predict a difference in gravitational effect of 1,000 times, but we don't observe this? You said we needed to know the luminosities, orbital period and distance, the stellar sizes, and the fraction of each other's emitted light they intercept. You have all of those numbers, When are you going to do something with it? Or are you too busy blasting hot air? Or this Cavendish thing. Still refusing to say how large the effect should be? Should be very simple for a super-genius. Are you not delivering because you're just too lazy, or are you just incapable. Either way, completely worthless, except for providing hot air.
From: NoEinstein on 9 Jun 2010 16:39 On Jun 8, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You, for one. I've explained that gravity is just ether energy flowing fown through your body to the Earth. When you fly on a jetliner, the ether flowing front to back through the plane is why it seems that you are waliking up hill going toward the front of the plane. That same ether pressure, similar to gravity, but horizontal, is what causes clocks to be slower in moving planes. And the clocks are LESS slow higher up, because the ether density and pressure is lower there. I also prevent you from loosing any sleep over the fact the Universe will... die coldbecause it won't. There is no expansion in the Universe, because there was no Big Bang! The latter would require that all of the mass of the Universe be compressed, by gravity, to the size of an atomic particle. Of course THAT defies logic. And it's not true, because Black Holes give out no light, and thus can't have ether flow... IN. And that's because there are no photons (or charged particles) flowing OUT. The star distribution data for the center of Andromeda proves that gravity shuts off when the central star goes black. Theres a starless band near the center where stars flew out on their tangents when the gravity stopped. Sam, you should applaud my logical proofs, not go-to-your-grave being a status quo junkie. NoEinstein > > On 6/8/10 5:49 AM, NoEinstein 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 may be a nice guy, but your posting record does not support the > notion that you have much understanding of physics. Can you name > one person who has benefited from you "contributions" to science?
From: NoEinstein on 9 Jun 2010 16:42 On Jun 8, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You are still "teaching" old science. My New Science shows that photons never exert forces, nor are they velocity proportional. Read back on this post to get clear explanations why. NoEinstein > > On 6/8/10 6:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > ...pressure is NEVER from the photons. > > Radiation pressure > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure > > "Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to > electromagnetic radiation. If absorbed, the pressure is the power flux > density divided by the speed of light. If the radiation is totally > reflected, the radiation pressure is doubled. For example, the radiation > of the Sun at the Earth has a power flux density of 1,370 W/m2, so the > radiation pressure is 4.6 µPa."
From: NoEinstein on 9 Jun 2010 16:46
On Jun 8, 1:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: All that Black Bodies do is to delay the release of the "visible" light. They gradually release the same total energy by radiation, conduction or convection. â NoEinstein â > > On 6/8/10 3:58 AM, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > On Jun 7, 1:04 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > > >> >    From the quantum mechanical perspective, > > >> >     1. photons are emitted (by charged particles) > >> >     2. photons propagate at c > >> >     3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles) > > >> >    Photon momentum > >> >     p = hν/c = h/λ > > >> >    Photon Energy > >> >     E = hν > > I would like to point out an inconsistency in your post > > about the photon momentum > > > Momentum is a mathematically calculated dynamic property > > of an uniformly moving mass, i.e., momentum is mass times > > velocity by definition. > > > The photon is commonly given as a 'massless' quality, i.e. > > a photon has no mass. > > > Thus any idea of photon momentum is an oxymoron. > >   Physical Properties >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties > > "Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is > accepted, the energy quanta must also carry momentum p=h/λ, making them > full-fledged particles. This photon momentum was observed > experimentally[40] by Arthur Compton, for which he received the Nobel > Prize in 1927".- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |