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: spudnik on 10 Jun 2010 20:01 how does the "gravity swing" differ essentially from the radiometer, if both are just pendula? how does merely asserting the error of Lorent's contraction, which seems quite reasonable to those of us, who believe that atoms have angular momentum, mean that you have disproven special relativity? > > > > I don't see how e = hf applies where there > > > > may be no atomic absorption. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Dear Rep. Lee (http://centeroncongress.org): Californians are at fault, probably being User #1 of Gulf oil & gas via pipelines ... all because of spill off of Santa Barbara in '68. Now, A.G. Brown is determined not to drill, at all. (Also, the offloading facilities in the Delta must have contributed greatly to the problems with Katrina.) Look; oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure. Perhaps it was a Natl.Geo. article on offshore driiling, showed that approx. one XXValdez/year seeps (organically) from the bottom of the Gulf -- while "we" are pumping like crazy. British P. is the #1 operator in the Gulf and Alaska; maybe, their USA ops should be nationalized. The WSUrinal often likens Waxman's bill to "cap&tax," but as far as I know (and as Rep. Waxman seemed to admit, in our brief conversation) it is just "let the arbitrageurs and daytrippers make as much money on our energy, as they can." An expert on emmissions at a UCLA forum agreed that a small carbon tax would achieve the same ends, but that "that is politically impossible." The Urinal also noted-in-passing that a tax would work, but that was in a guest editorial, promoting cap&trade ... the same as the Kyoto Protocol, which Dubya'd have signed, if he knew that it was just "free trade, free beer & freedom in the free market." And, it is the same as Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill on NOX and SO2, viz acid rain. So, how did it go, then, and who made the money? --Sincerely, Brian Hutchings,
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jun 2010 20:20 On Jun 10, 10:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Correction: Make both the ether flow and the ether density increase INVERSELY as the square of the distance. I've explained this so many times that I shortened my words and left out one of the inverselies. NE > > On Jun 9, 10:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Sam: For someone with no history of making substantive posts, > you rate only as a jealous blow-hard. The thousands reading my words > every day don't do so because Sam Wormley replies. To prove that fact > to you, why don't you make one '+new post' (if you can) and see how > many readers leave me to follow you. You are sad, Sam, very sad. > > Oh... The "correction" to Newtonian Physics in GR is to include the > Lorentz transformation "invented" to explain the nil results of the M- > M experiment. The latter gave us rubber rulers and... SR. Strictly > by chance, the math (but not the rationale) behind Lorentz's Beta is a > close analogy to having gravity forces increase, inversely, as the > distance; and to be subject to a "flow" that also increases, > inversely, as the square of the distance. So, without SR (which I've > disproved), there would be no GR (which I correctly define as being > caused by ether flow, NOT by space-time variance.) NoEinstein > > > > > > > On 6/9/10 3:23 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > Dear Sam: I've disproved SR. There is no such thing as space-time > > > variance due to velocity or nearness to mass. > > > You even confuse SR and GTR! BTW-All you have demonstrated is > > a lack of education in relativity and other branches of physics. > > It's all in your posting record.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jun 2010 21:20 On Jun 10, 8:01 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Spudnik: My (proposed) Gravity Swing Experiment has one simple objective: To show that the SS plate will always swing TOWARD the light source, due to gravitational attraction caused by photon exchange, and not swing away from the light, as though the photons apply a push force. The Nichols Radiometer wasted too much time, money, and effort trying to be precise in answering "how much"... without really understanding what they were measuring. Initial experiments in science should answer yes or no, and let later experiments answer how much, My X, Y, & Z interferometer answers YES to the question: "Can Earth's velocity be detected by an Earth mounted experiment?" Einstein himself said that his SR would be disproved if any experiment ever did what mine surely does! NoEinstein > > how does the "gravity swing" differ essentially > from the radiometer, if both are just pendula? > > how does merely asserting the error of Lorent's contraction, > which seems quite reasonable to those of us, > who believe that atoms have angular momentum, > mean that you have disproven special relativity? > > > > > > I don't see how e = hf applies where there > > > > > may be no atomic absorption. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure > > Dear Rep. Lee (http://centeroncongress.org): > Californians are at fault, probably being User #1 of Gulf oil & gas > via pipelines ... all because of spill off of Santa Barbara in '68. > Now, A.G. Brown is determined not to drill, at all. (Also, the > offloading facilities in the Delta must have contributed greatly to > the problems with Katrina.) > > Look; oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure. Perhaps > it was a Natl.Geo. article on offshore driiling, showed that approx. > one XXValdez/year seeps (organically) from the bottom of the Gulf -- > while "we" are pumping like crazy. > > British P. is the #1 operator in the Gulf and Alaska; maybe, their USA > ops should be nationalized. The WSUrinal often likens Waxman's bill > to "cap&tax," but as far as I know (and as Rep. Waxman seemed to > admit, in our brief conversation) it is just "let the arbitrageurs and > daytrippers make as much money on our energy, as they can." > > An expert on emmissions at a UCLA forum agreed that a small carbon tax > would achieve the same ends, but that "that is politically > impossible." The Urinal also noted-in-passing that a tax would work, > but that was in a guest editorial, promoting cap&trade ... the same as > the Kyoto Protocol, which Dubya'd have signed, if he knew that it was > just "free trade, free beer & freedom in the free market." And, it is > the same as Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill on NOX and SO2, viz acid rain. > > So, how did it go, then, and who made the money? > > --Sincerely, Brian Hutchings,
From: spudnik on 10 Jun 2010 22:09 wow, you almost answered my question! so, what is an XYZ interferometer, and have you actually built & used it, and why do you need rocks o'light in your theory, taht says that the target moves toward the light? thus&so: there's a guy, a mister Griffith, an academic in theology, who publishes books about the "9/11 controlled demo.' I went to a talk he gave, got there late, and only caught his last, two, bogus statements, which I challenged (hint: one involves "box-cutters"). his next book removed these two items! thus&so: see if you can find the U.S. Reference Climate Network, without googoling yourself. well, recently, when I tried to find it with a search, it was stated that it had somehow been abandoned, even though it was nothing but a dataset of 28 continental stations. thus&so: wow, what a quibble. of course, if you think in terms of blackbody absorption & radiation, the distinction is rather slighter, and NASA's qualifying terms are correcter. thus&so: cap&trade is as old as Waxman's '91 bill under HDubya, and the editors of the WSUrinal just love it; however, they refer to Waxman's current bill as "cap&tax," without ever explaining, why. (see my letter to Rep. Hamilton, belowsville .-) thus&so: really; my city promotes all green stuff, in cooperation, I suppose, with the WAND Corp., and also "global" warming. they just had two authors of a book, _Smoke and Mirrors_, at the library, who use the tobacco science baddies to demonize the "global" warming deniers. they just had an editorial in the LAtribcoTIMES, and they dyssed S. Fred Singer, as per usual with mainstream GCMers -- which is mostly what they are, not really AGWers. look at Singer's retrospective metastudy on glaciers, please; thank *you*. thus&so: Schroedinger's cat is dead; long-live Schroedinger's cat! thus&so: I tried the 3D glasses, the other day, and it was really weird, *without* closing one eye in the mirror; makes one's eye's look flat & glassy. (I assumed, UA wasn't using the red & blue kind.) thus&so: how does the "gravity swing" differ essentially from the radiometer, if both are just pendula? how does merely asserting the error of Lorent's contraction, which seems quite reasonable to those of us, who believe that atoms have angular momentum, mean that you have disproven special relativity? > I don't see how e = hf applies where there may be no atomic absorption. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Dear Rep. Lee (http://centeroncongress.org): Californians are at fault, probably being User #1 of Gulf oil & gas via pipelines ... all because of spill off of Santa Barbara in '68. Now, A.G. Brown is determined not to drill, at all. (Also, the offloading facilities in the Delta must have contributed greatly to the problems with Katrina.) Look; oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure. Perhaps it was a Natl.Geo. article on offshore driiling, showed that approx. one XXValdez/year seeps (organically) from the bottom of the Gulf -- while "we" are pumping like crazy. British P. is the #1 operator in the Gulf and Alaska; maybe, their USA ops should be nationalized. The WSUrinal often likens Waxman's bill to "cap&tax," but as far as I know (and as Rep. Waxman seemed to admit, in our brief conversation) it is just "let the arbitrageurs and daytrippers make as much money on our energy, as they can." An expert on emmissions at a UCLA forum agreed that a small carbon tax would achieve the same ends, but that "that is politically impossible." The Urinal also noted-in-passing that a tax would work, but that was in a guest editorial, promoting cap&trade ... the same as the Kyoto Protocol, which Dubya'd have signed, if he knew that it was just "free trade, free beer & freedom in the free market." And, it is the same as Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill on NOX and SO2, viz acid rain. So, how did it go, then, and who made the money? --Sincerely, Brian
From: Timo Nieminen on 10 Jun 2010 22:31
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Tim BandTech.com wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:19 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 9:43 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 9, 3:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 4:10 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If we had, say, a large lead ball hanging on a > > > > > string in stasis, and sent a tiny steel ball into the lead ball at > > > > > high velocity then we would observe some heating, but too achieve the > > > > > level of heating that light achieves will be quite some trick to mimic > > > > > in the terms of massive collisions. > > > > > > Not at all. Wikipedia tells me that the energy of a typical 5.56mm > > > > NATO bullet when fired is 1.7kJ. Shoot them into a massive target at a > > > > little under 1 round per second, and you achieve approximately the > > > > same heating. (Not the same force as with light! Just the same > > > > heating.) > > > > > Here again I see your obfuscatory tactic. Firstly you falsify and in > > > your conclusion you agree. > > > > You were quite specific: "level of heating that light achieves will be > > quite some trick to mimic". This level of heating is easy to mimic. > > > > > The amount of heating that light is capable > > > of when absorbed versus the work that can be done mechanically due to > > > that absorption are remarkable in comparison to your NATO bullet. > > > > So, you want to change "level of heating" to "amount of heating versus > > work"? If you meant this in the first place, you weren't clear enough. > > To criticise my reply to your actual original words on the basis of > > your _changed_ version lies somewhere on the scale from weaseling to > > complete bullshit. > > I'll have to own here that I should have used the word 'relative' > within the context, but I see it is fairly easy to interperet since > the context of the whole argument is still present. Hell, I can match > the heat of sunlight rubbing some steel on a rock. The lead of the > bullet will melt on impact. Your interpretation of my writing is > clearly not coherent at many levels. Your original argument wasn't coherent, then. As far as I could tell, you thought it improper that almost all of the energy should go into heating, not work. We see the same thing in Newtonian mechanics for a light object in inelastic collision with a heavy object. Qualitatively, the same type of thing, most of the energy going into heating. > The context of the discussion for me revolves around the photon energy > and how we can come to attribute the photon momentum to the photon > energy without concern for such things as angular momentum. We're not attributing the photon momentum to the photon energy. For a moving bullet, does the kinetic energy cause the momentum? Does the momentum cause the kinetic energy? Do we attribute one to the other? For the photon, consider a spin +1 photon. How much of its energy is "in" the angular momentum? Be specific: consider a 500nm photon, with hbar angular momentum. We can write down 3 numbers: its energy, its momentum, and its angular momentum. How are these 3 related to each other, showing appropriate concern for angular momentum? How about for a 5Hz photon? Do the same. Does this mean that a 5Hz photon shouldn't have any momentum? The ratios or values of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, as commonly stated for photons, come straight out of classical electromagnetic theory. Are these ratios or values wrong? Yes or no, no handwaving, no waffle, just a straight answer. |