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: Timo Nieminen on 13 Jun 2010 19:12 On Jun 13, 8:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 12, 4:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Not to leave out the really conclusive ones: look at atom trapping, > > where the effects of the background gas is catastrophic to the > > trapping. > > Heating of the interstellar media would not seem helpful > for holding a solar-sail in place. That is not a catastrophe > if the intent was propulsion. The collisions can be rather beneficial for the sail, anyway. Ride that solar wind! > Wiki has the Nichols Radiometer grouped with solar sails. If > the device fits better with tweezers, showing how and why > could be a useful contribution. You can divide the radiation forces into reflection, refraction, and absorption forces. All still Newton 2, so no fundamental difference. The traditional division in tweezers is into "scattering" forces and gradient forces, which is of some practical value, good for Lorentz force calculations, but bad for Newton 2 calculations. You could divide devices into far-field and near-field devices, tweezers/sails/Nichols vs electric motors/railguns etc., radiation (in the far-field sense) vs induction. Or devices into EM forces dominate vs other forces dominate vs all forces matter. What the best taxonomy is depends on the purpose.
From: NoEinstein on 13 Jun 2010 20:44 On Jun 12, 9:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. NoEinstein > > On 6/12/10 7:46 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Sam: The time (CLOCK) slowing is caused by ether pressure. The > > real time rate never varies! > > Clock rates are perspective dependent. Two different observers can > measure different clock rates. This happens all the time and shoots > your theory to the rubbish heap.
From: NoEinstein on 13 Jun 2010 20:45 On Jun 12, 9:30 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. NoEinstein > > On 6/12/10 7:36 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Timo: Momentum is: The increase or decrease in the impact force > > Nope. Momentum is conserved in closed systems. Momentum can be > changed by force. See Newton's second law: F = dp/dt
From: NoEinstein on 13 Jun 2010 20:53 On Jun 13, 7:12 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: No one has ever 'ridden a solar sail, and I'll bet they never will. In order for photons to 'push' they would have to have masswhich they don't. And the huge radiation from the Sun would have already kicked the planets out of the Solar system! Solar sails are science fiction. NoEinstein > > On Jun 13, 8:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 4:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Not to leave out the really conclusive ones: look at atom trapping, > > > where the effects of the background gas is catastrophic to the > > > trapping. > > > Heating of the interstellar media would not seem helpful > > for holding a solar-sail in place. That is not a catastrophe > > if the intent was propulsion. > > The collisions can be rather beneficial for the sail, anyway. Ride > that solar wind! > > > Wiki has the Nichols Radiometer grouped with solar sails. If > > the device fits better with tweezers, showing how and why > > could be a useful contribution. > > You can divide the radiation forces into reflection, refraction, and > absorption forces. All still Newton 2, so no fundamental difference. > The traditional division in tweezers is into "scattering" forces and > gradient forces, which is of some practical value, good for Lorentz > force calculations, but bad for Newton 2 calculations. > > You could divide devices into far-field and near-field devices, > tweezers/sails/Nichols vs electric motors/railguns etc., radiation (in > the far-field sense) vs induction. > > Or devices into EM forces dominate vs other forces dominate vs all > forces matter. > > What the best taxonomy is depends on the purpose.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jun 2010 21:46
On 6/13/10 7:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > On Jun 12, 9:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science > is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, > make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow > you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of > the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. > In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. � NoEinstein � Momentum is conserved in closed systems. Momentum can be changed by force. See Newton's second law: F = dp/dt Your "New Science" is nothing more than no science. You should consider doing some self education. |