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 2 Jun 2010 14:30 clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is; it's not just a "visualization programme" from teh Wolframites! > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: Timo Nieminen on 2 Jun 2010 18:09 On Jun 3, 12:46 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 9:40 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > So, whatever your doubts about Nichols' experiment, it's been repeated > > and amply confirmed many times (and at least some of these were by > > people who didn't Nichols' results were really good enough). These > > days, it's almost trivial. > > I've reviewed your paper "Momentum of an electromagnetic wave in > dielectric media". > I wonder to what degree the name 'energy-momentum tensor' is a strict > meaning? > If we accept that the electric field is sinusoidal and so has zeros > then all of the expressions that you consider contain instaneous zeros > within their representation. This suggests that conservation of > 'energy-momentum' does not exist, but then, these are not claims on > just momentum are they? As you say we should consider a monochromatic > and coherent source to simplify matters. This is fairly analogous to > Maxwell plane wave isn't it? > > With the experiment of Ashkin and Dziedzic did they ever bother to > drive the beam up out of the water into the air and observe a reversal > of their effect? Did they ever bother to consider that the thermal > heating of the water could be providing their effect? They did it with the beam going from air to water, and from water to air (in which case the water surface still bulges outwards). Yes, they did consider thermal effects. > In the experiment of Jones and Richard you say > "Jones sought > to verify the prediction that when a mirror was immersed > in a dielectric medium, the radiation pressure exerted on > the mirror would be proportional to the refractive index > of the medium." > yet this goes in exact contradiction to the claimed Reynolds effect, > where immersion in a fluid is subject again to thermodynamic effects. The two general difficulties in doing experiments of this kind are that (a) the forces are small, and (b) thermal effects. Jones (in both the '54 and the '78 experiments) did a reasonably good job of dealing with the thermal effects (don't have a copy here with me to check the details, but he does discuss this). > As you say above here to just relax, because these experiments have > been done again, and that the weakness of Nichols work does not exist > in perpetutity, well, I believe that I have presented evidence here > that these experimenters are the ones who relaxed on top of the work > of Nichols. No, you haven't presented any _evidence_ of this here. Read the relevant papers, and make sure you read the later ones. The pioneer experiments aren't always the best. One difficulty with thermal effects is that, to first order, they'll be proportional to the power, just like the radiation forces. What to do? Firstly, immersion in a liquid reduces thermal effects as compared with a gas - the thermal conductivity of the liquid is much higher, so temperatures don't rise as much. Doing this with very small objects (a few microns in size, as in optical tweezers) helps too, since the distances over which heat needs to be conducted is very small. Next, it would be quite a coincidence for the thermal force to give a force equal to (i.e., within a reasonably small experimental error) that expected due to radiation pressure. But it could happen. So you try it with liquids of different refractive indices. If the expected dependence on refractive index is there, it's a very, very stong indication that the force is due to radiation momentum, not thermal forces. This is what Jones did. This is also confirmed by lots of optical tweezers experiments. In particular, in some of these, it's known that the thermal forces would move the object in the wrong direction. One of the best experiments is: http://apl.aip.org/applab/v87/i22/p221109_s1 where they measured the optical force on a microsphere, as the wavelength is changes (using a tunable laser). They see the Mie resonances and whispering gallery resonances, as expected from radiation momentum, and not from thermal forces. The other thing to try, changing materials so that the optical forces should be same but the thermal forces different, I haven't seen explicitly tried. That said, thermal forces can be seen in optical tweezers in some circumstances, especially with surfaces present (e.g., due to bubbles). We've seen the effects of convection. But a clear and simple experiment to look at the size of thermal forces could be good. (Maybe it's been done?) But the absolutely conclusive experiments showing that there are force that aren't due to thermal effects are various atom trapping experiments (including Bose-Einstein condenstate (BEC) experiments). > Lastly, I would argue from a very simplistic perspective that if > conservation of energy and momentum is upheld that these figures in > vacuum should match these figures in solid media. > Otherwise where did the energy or momentum go? As a beam enters a non-absorbing and non-reflecting (use an anti- reflection coating if you wish) medium, the power can't change - where would or could the energy go? But the momentum can change. A force is a transfer of momentum - all you need to change the momentum of the beam is a force on the surface. > I admit that my own belief is that the momentum is actually zero in > terms of a steady unidirectional push on a plate of material, but in > that light does propagate in a given direction we must admit the > energy itself is directed, but when for instance we absorb all of that > energy as in a black ideal absorber, that it has nothing to do with > mechanical momentum. And yet, a force acts on the absorber. > The claims of propulsion doubling from a perfect > reflector only help to boost my position. Why? Force due to reflection is observed. The amount is such that the force on a perfect reflector would be double that on a perfect absorber. > I guess to pose the simplest > question that I can on this is to ask whether the energy of a photon > e = h f > is the entire energy of the photon? The results on force and momentum are entirely compatible with this. The classical experiments don't say anything about each photon, but the various atom trapping experiments do. I dont' know this literature well, but perhaps a good starting point would be the Chu/Phillips/ Cohen-Tannoudhi Nobel speeches/papers. > What have you concluded about > Wormley's claim on the momentum figure here? Isn't this figure the > classical blackbody figure of momentum? How did the discrepancy then > to a very slight momentum figure arise and how do we split that > smaller energy off of this photon energy without corrupting physics? ??? What do you mean "split that smaller energy off"? Momentum = energy/c for a photon, momentum flux = power/c for a parallel beam. This is a "small" momentum compared to the energy (but be careful when comparing - these are in different units!). How is this a problem? > I'm sorry but the effect in a perfect vacuum has not been clearly > demonstrated. As you've accepted the flaws of Nichols work then the > question of whether the radiation pressure is observable in vacuum > still exists. The experiments that you've exposed in your paper must > not be the modern experiments that you speak of. Perfect vacuum, no. Very good vacuums, yes, especially with atom trapping. I've seen classical experiments done in vacuum (can't recall how good), where absorbing particles were blasted by short pulses of light, to measure their radiation pressure cross-sections. The bulk of the modern experiments aren't experiments on radiation momentum; they just use it in the experiment. But the experiment by Calos Lenz Cesar's group (http://apl.aip.org/applab/v87/i22/p221109_s1 as cited above) is an excellent modern experiment. > > > > If the reflector is moving, there will be a Doppler shift, and energy in > > > > will be different from energy out. If the reflector is stationary, then > > > > you could have, e.g., 1300W in and 1300W out. But no work would be done. > > > > Very good. We have agreement, particularly at the low velocities that > > > these instruments work at. As far as we can tell there is no reliance > > > upon red shifting of light, which could provide some work. > > > The force doesn't depend on redshift. But it doesn't take any > > expenditure of energy to produce a force - just ask a fridge magnet or > > a paperweight. Having the force do work does very much depend on > > redshift, since the reflector has to move for the radiation pressure > > to do work on it. > > Awww, come on.... The claim is that the force is doing work, and the > existence of any redshift in doing that work has been completely > ignored in any of these theories or experiments. This is just wrong. It's true that a lot of the theory doesn't take any redshift into account, but that's because they're calculating the force on a stationary object, when there's no redshift. (more below) > Without doing some > work there will be no indication as of a vane which rotates on a > tensioned fiber. We know we're at extremely low velocity in this > experiment, so any redshift observed would be a highly impressive > mechanism. At very low speeds, you don't need to deal with redshift to find forces in classical experiments. The force exists at v=0 (when there is no redshift and no work), and for small v, the force is almost exactly the same. The difference between the v=0 force and the small but non-zero v force is much, much, smaller than can be detected in most experiments. It does matter in atom trapping and cooling, and is essential for the proper functioning. > I don't mean to get too ornery, but you are sweeping over these points > as if there is no fundamental problem. In this case, there isn't any fundamental problem. The known theory gives a very good quantitative match for the observed results. > we will first need something working in vacuum > which observes the supposed radiation pressure. Basically, the atom-trapping experiments are as close to "perfect vacuum" experiments as will likely be available. > From the theoretical > side there is a reliance upon a third of the energy density for this > pressure that we still have not arrived at, though you've gotten very > close in Maxwell's treatise. No, there isn't any such reliance; as I already said, there are many pathways (Lorentz force, Noether's theorem, thermodynamics, the simple derivation in my other post). (The 1/3 turns up for omnidirectional radiation, like blackbody radiation. For a directed beam or a plane wave, p = P/c.) > Here is the strongest link that I have > found in support of challenging the existing theory: > http://www.neumann-alpha.org/lightpressure.pdf > This site is a bit out there, but then, so too was Nichols. Any who > will rest on top of his work, and that is how science is done, are on > a shaky ladder. Will look when I have time. -- Timo
From: NoEinstein on 3 Jun 2010 09:53 On Jun 2, 11:33 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: I agree with you, totally! Your reply should be required reading for the stone brains who... censor True Science from the journals. I was impressed by your assessment, earlier, that the Nichols Radiometer 'might not be analogousâ to the Crookes, which it purported to be an extension of. After reading the entire Astrophysical Journal article, I was moved to make a new post, today, entitled: A proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment. Read it and let me hear what you think. There are simple experiments which can finally get us out of the Dark Ages of Einstein! â NoEinstein â > > On Jun 1, 11:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 31, 8:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Dear Tim:  Where have you been?!  Your logical mind, justifies cloning > > you... or putting you out-to-stud!  Thanks for giving me a hint of how > > the Nichols Radiometer works.  If you will make a concise top post(s) > > regarding science questions that relate to light or to gravity, I will > > be most happy to reply.  But know this: I am a generalist, not a > > specialist.  Don't try to make me into a mathematician.  Those aren't > > generalists, nor scientists! > > Geeze, what a compliment. So rare on usenet. I share somwhat your > concept of a generalist and have posed that question in the past of > where these generalists are? It is pretty easy to grow skeptical of > the course of science given the system's structure of censors on a > quantity of journals whose access is protected by a price tag that few > can afford, and whose accumulation is overwhelming. Still, there is a > tension between freedom to construct and correctness. I will argue for > the freedom to construct, and, to accept all that is printed in > journals is perfect is a farcical stance. It is more apt to state that > what is printed in journals fits the censors' agendas. Well, hooray > for arxiv.org! What about right here on usenet? Why shouldn't > scientists be free to disagree with each other in the open? What > better means of falsification could there be? In terms of seeking the > truth I suspect that this medium could be more effective than the > journal system, which is a protected form. Why shouldn't the > conversations be open? Probably because in a climate of falsification > everyone will appear to be failures. Still, shouldn't we seek out > those falsifications as a means to drive toward some fundamental > truth?  Just imagine the level of slander that would go on with the > behemoths who struggle for millions of dollars for their pet projects. > We are humans practicing science as our only alternative, other than > resignation to reality on her own terms. Is the over exuberance of > wall street's elite possible in the scientific community? As an > outsider looking in, and seeing that fundamentals do still remain to > be constructed by humans, then the idea that we are overlooking > something fairly simple is an affirmation of the faith of science; > that answers do exist. The problems are open. Those who attempt to > shut others down are practicing dead science. Falsification of one > idea will lead to another idea, and that is how we work; the current > position should not take the attitude that it has taken, but we are > still caught nearby. The clean answers may exist, but these are not > necessarily consistent with the current position. Here is an agile > medium for propagation of ideas and the corrective falsifications that > are needed, with no worry of a control freak censor stepping in. > >  - Tim > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5/30/10 9:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > Photons have ZERO mass, and exert zero force upon > > > > > âstrikingâ a reflecting surface. > > > > >   Photons have zero REST mass, but have momentum of > > > > >     p = hν/c = h/λ > > > > >   A perfect reflector's momentum would increase by > > > > >     2p = 2h/λ > > > > >   for every photon. Ever heard of a solar sail? > > > > I've recently done some research on the radiometer, and this math > > > analysis is definitely not what makes it tick. The sun is putting out > > > 1300 watts per square meter. If all of this energy goes into > > > mechanical energy then we'd be making turbines rather than PV cells. > > > > There is a 'radiation pressure' claim of one third the energy density > > > (loose language) supposedly from Maxwell. I haven't found that > > > computation yet. > > > > The Nichols radiometer is a torsion balance, whereas Crook's spins > > > freely. Somehow Nichols claims to have provided one that works in > > > vacuum, and yet the argument should pass freely onto the Crook's > > > version. How much friction can there be in a well made pin bearing > > > versus a quartz fiber? The Nichol's data is weird near perfect vacuum.. > > > An inversion takes place that he just graphs and doesn't care to > > > explaim. He claims that the atmospheric effects can be cancelled as > > > shown by the zeros in his graphs. Well, at these zeros there will be > > > no effect. I find the Nichols claims unconvincing. > > > > In terms of the atmospheric effects a thermal differential causing > > > fluid flow at the edges is supposedly the cause, discovered by > > > Reynolds. I've not seen any analysis in terms of Bernoulli effect, but > > > if the air is rising at the black surface then the velocity of the gas > > > is greater there. This is the simplest explanation, but there are so > > > many explanations with very little proof. > > > > I'm pretty sure the radiation pressure argument is false. Photons are > > > more like AC sources than DC sources. If the pressure is alternating > > > then to claim a propulsive acceleration is a misnomer. It would be > > > like putting a ping pong ball in front of a speaker, blasting out 100 > > > watts and expecting the ping pong ball to accelerate away from the > > > speaker. > > > > It's interesting how easy it is to become opinionated on this topic. > > > Without gravity the effects of the atmosphere with temperature > > > difference would be diminished so it would be neat to see this > > > experiment done in outer space, and at various atmospheric pressures. > > > > I was researching this in a recent thread > > >   http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/4835ecd7ca6... > > > There are some links in there, starting with > > >   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html > > > > 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. Consider taking a full length > > > mirror out into the sun and being boled over by three horsepower of > > > push. This area is loaded with misnomers and is a great subject for > > > it. > > > >  - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 3 Jun 2010 10:01 On Jun 2, 6:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Too much verbiage hurts your science content. Most will read two concise paragraphs. You've got those... in you, but you don't let others see them, because you enjoy... conversation too much. Someone once said: "Nothing constructive was ever done while talking." True science requires thought and action, not talk. NoEinstein > > On Jun 3, 12:46 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 9:40 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > So, whatever your doubts about Nichols' experiment, it's been repeated > > > and amply confirmed many times (and at least some of these were by > > > people who didn't Nichols' results were really good enough). These > > > days, it's almost trivial. > > > I've reviewed your paper "Momentum of an electromagnetic wave in > > dielectric media". > > I wonder to what degree the name 'energy-momentum tensor' is a strict > > meaning? > > If we accept that the electric field is sinusoidal and so has zeros > > then all of the expressions that you consider contain instaneous zeros > > within their representation. This suggests that conservation of > > 'energy-momentum' does not exist, but then, these are not claims on > > just momentum are they? As you say we should consider a monochromatic > > and coherent source to simplify matters. This is fairly analogous to > > Maxwell plane wave isn't it? > > > With the experiment of Ashkin and Dziedzic did they ever bother to > > drive the beam up out of the water into the air and observe a reversal > > of their effect? Did they ever bother to consider that the thermal > > heating of the water could be providing their effect? > > They did it with the beam going from air to water, and from water to > air (in which case the water surface still bulges outwards). Yes, they > did consider thermal effects. > > > In the experiment of Jones and Richard you say > > "Jones sought > > to verify the prediction that when a mirror was immersed > > in a dielectric medium, the radiation pressure exerted on > > the mirror would be proportional to the refractive index > > of the medium." > > yet this goes in exact contradiction to the claimed Reynolds effect, > > where immersion in a fluid is subject again to thermodynamic effects. > > The two general difficulties in doing experiments of this kind are > that (a) the forces are small, and (b) thermal effects. Jones (in both > the '54 and the '78 experiments) did a reasonably good job of dealing > with the thermal effects (don't have a copy here with me to check the > details, but he does discuss this). > > > As you say above here to just relax, because these experiments have > > been done again, and that the weakness of Nichols work does not exist > > in perpetutity, well, I believe that I have presented evidence here > > that these experimenters are the ones who relaxed on top of the work > > of Nichols. > > No, you haven't presented any _evidence_ of this here. Read the > relevant papers, and make sure you read the later ones. The pioneer > experiments aren't always the best. > > One difficulty with thermal effects is that, to first order, they'll > be proportional to the power, just like the radiation forces. What to > do? Firstly, immersion in a liquid reduces thermal effects as compared > with a gas - the thermal conductivity of the liquid is much higher, so > temperatures don't rise as much. Doing this with very small objects (a > few microns in size, as in optical tweezers) helps too, since the > distances over which heat needs to be conducted is very small. > > Next, it would be quite a coincidence for the thermal force to give a > force equal to (i.e., within a reasonably small experimental error) > that expected due to radiation pressure. But it could happen. So you > try it with liquids of different refractive indices. If the expected > dependence on refractive index is there, it's a very, very stong > indication that the force is due to radiation momentum, not thermal > forces. This is what Jones did. This is also confirmed by lots of > optical tweezers experiments. In particular, in some of these, it's > known that the thermal forces would move the object in the wrong > direction. > > One of the best experiments is:http://apl.aip.org/applab/v87/i22/p221109_s1 > where they measured the optical force on a microsphere, as the > wavelength is changes (using a tunable laser). They see the Mie > resonances and whispering gallery resonances, as expected from > radiation momentum, and not from thermal forces. > > The other thing to try, changing materials so that the optical forces > should be same but the thermal forces different, I haven't seen > explicitly tried. That said, thermal forces can be seen in optical > tweezers in some circumstances, especially with surfaces present > (e.g., due to bubbles). We've seen the effects of convection. But a > clear and simple experiment to look at the size of thermal forces > could be good. (Maybe it's been done?) > > But the absolutely conclusive experiments showing that there are force > that aren't due to thermal effects are various atom trapping > experiments (including Bose-Einstein condenstate (BEC) experiments). > > > Lastly, I would argue from a very simplistic perspective that if > > conservation of energy and momentum is upheld that these figures in > > vacuum should match these figures in solid media. > > Otherwise where did the energy or momentum go? > > As a beam enters a non-absorbing and non-reflecting (use an anti- > reflection coating if you wish) medium, the power can't change - where > would or could the energy go? But the momentum can change. A force is > a transfer of momentum - all you need to change the momentum of the > beam is a force on the surface. > > > I admit that my own belief is that the momentum is actually zero in > > terms of a steady unidirectional push on a plate of material, but in > > that light does propagate in a given direction we must admit the > > energy itself is directed, but when for instance we absorb all of that > > energy as in a black ideal absorber, that it has nothing to do with > > mechanical momentum. > > And yet, a force acts on the absorber. > > > The claims of propulsion doubling from a perfect > > reflector only help to boost my position. > > Why? Force due to reflection is observed. The amount is such that the > force on a perfect reflector would be double that on a perfect > absorber. > > > I guess to pose the simplest > > question that I can on this is to ask whether the energy of a photon > > e = h f > > is the entire energy of the photon? > > The results on force and momentum are entirely compatible with this. > The classical experiments don't say anything about each photon, but > the various atom trapping experiments do. I dont' know this literature > well, but perhaps a good starting point would be the Chu/Phillips/ > Cohen-Tannoudhi Nobel speeches/papers. > > > What have you concluded about > > Wormley's claim on the momentum figure here? Isn't this figure the > > classical blackbody figure of momentum? How did the discrepancy then > > to a very slight momentum figure arise and how do we split that > > smaller energy off of this photon energy without corrupting physics? > > ??? What do you mean "split that smaller energy off"? > > Momentum = energy/c for a photon, momentum flux = power/c for a > parallel beam. This is a "small" momentum compared to the energy (but > be careful when comparing - these are in different units!). How is > this a problem? > > > I'm sorry but the effect in a perfect vacuum has not been clearly > > demonstrated. As you've accepted the flaws of Nichols work then the > > question of whether the radiation pressure is observable in vacuum > > still exists. The experiments that you've exposed in your paper must > > not be the modern experiments that you speak of. > > Perfect vacuum, no. Very good vacuums, yes, especially with atom > trapping. I've seen classical experiments done in vacuum (can't recall > how good), where absorbing particles were blasted by short pulses of > light, to measure their radiation pressure cross-sections. > > The bulk of the modern experiments aren't experiments on radiation > momentum; they just use it in the experiment. But the experiment by > Calos Lenz Cesar's group (http://apl.aip.org/applab/v87/i22/p221109_s1 > as cited above) is an excellent modern experiment. > > > > > > > > > > If the reflector is moving, there will be a Doppler shift, and energy in > > > > > will be different from energy out. If the reflector is stationary, then > > > > > you could have, e.g., 1300W in and 1300W out. But no work would be done. > > > > > Very good. We have agreement, particularly at the low velocities that > > > > these instruments work at. As far as we can tell there is no reliance > > > > upon red shifting of light, which could provide some work. > > > > The force doesn't depend on redshift. But it doesn't take any > > > expenditure of energy to produce a force - just ask a fridge magnet or > > > a paperweight. Having the force do work does very much depend on > > > redshift, since the reflector has to move for the radiation pressure > > > to do work on it. > > > Awww, come on.... The claim is that the force is doing work, and the > > existence of any redshift in doing that work has been completely > > ignored in any of these theories or experiments. > > This is just wrong. It's true that a lot of the theory doesn't take > any redshift into account, but that's because they're calculating the > force on a stationary object, when there's no redshift. (more below) > > > Without doing some > > work there will be no indication as of a vane which rotates on a > > tensioned fiber. We know we're at extremely low velocity in this > > experiment, so any redshift observed would be a highly impressive > > mechanism. > > At very low speeds, you don't need to deal with redshift to find > forces in classical experiments. The force exists at v=0 (when there > is no redshift and no work), and for small v, the force is almost > exactly the same. The difference between the v=0 force and the small > but non-zero v force is much, much, smaller than can be detected in > most experiments. > > It does matter in atom trapping and cooling, and is essential for the > proper functioning. > > > I don't mean to get too ornery, but you are sweeping over these points > > as if there is no fundamental problem. > > In this case, there isn't any fundamental problem. The known theory > gives a very good quantitative match for the observed results. > > > > > we will first need something working in vacuum > > which observes the supposed > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Timo Nieminen on 3 Jun 2010 15:23
On Jun 4, 12:01 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 2, 6:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: Too much verbiage hurts your science content. So why do you post so many long posts? Over and over? > Most will > read two concise paragraphs. I've given you replies of two concise paragraphs. All you did was refuse to reply. And rudely at that. If you didn't want the information, why did you ask? > Someone once said: "Nothing constructive was ever done while > talking." True science requires thought and action, not talk. Very true. And since there is no action (and apparently no thought) from you, I can safely assume that you're not doing science, whatever you might fantasise. |