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 23 Jun 2010 13:27 On Jun 13, 9:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: Those talking "relativity" (different clock rates) have two problems: (1.) They have difficulty visualizing 3D physical concepts; and (2.) They take pleasure in the difficulty of proving someone wrong. They enjoy arguing about relativity, because such is so pointless and vague that no one ever wins, nor looses, the argument. Be it known: The truthfulness of any science theory is inversely proportional to the amount of time required to prove such 'right'. By that standard, SR is patently wrong! NoEinstein > > On 6/13/10 7:44 PM, NoEinstein 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 > > 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. This is demonstrated with satellite > clocks. > > The proper treatment of relativistic effect on satellite clock is > discussed in this work by Neil Ashby, "Relativity in the Global > Positioning System" > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5..... > > Your "New Science" is nothing more than no science. You should > consider doing some self education.
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jun 2010 13:29 On Jun 13, 10:28 pm, pete <pfil...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > 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. > > I learned that "angular momentum" > was the immutable quantity in a closed system. > > -- > pete- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Great! "Learning is that which changes behavior." How are you behaving differently, Pete? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jun 2010 13:42 On Jun 21, 4:20 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Momentum, angular or otherwise, requires that there be a mass. Photons are pure energy, not mass. Accept those facts, and move on. NoEinstein > > On Jun 19, 9:41 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your persistence on this thread. I've learned some things > > from you. > > If you still want to dig for some nuggets in the angular momentum/ > energy calculation, they're still there. The one that's of more > interest to you, I think, is the 5Hz photon. E=hf vs angular momentum > = hbar. Note the units! > > -- > Timo
From: Edward Green on 23 Jun 2010 22:43 On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: <...> > 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 That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read.
From: Edward Green on 24 Jun 2010 09:52
On May 31, 8:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: <...> > The most blatant farce is in terms of conservation of energy. The > claim is that the light hitting a reflective surface will provide > twice the momentum; one kick when the light hits it and one kick again > from the light when it leaves. This concept offends the conservation > of energy. 1300 watts in with 1300 watts out leaves no acceleration > whatsoever for the perfect reflector. It leaves room for a force. If the reflector starts to move away, then the spectrum will be conveniently downshifted by Doppler. I presume energy conservation will be mollified. > Consider taking a full length > mirror out into the sun and being boled over by three horsepower of > push. Evidently there is some problem with equating force with power. The damn solar power can't do much direct work, apparently. |