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 29 Jun 2010 01:02 On Jun 28, 6:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: PD,. the Parasite Dunce, deserves no more than one reply per day from me. He hangs around me, because I've got lots and lots of you readers. Thanks for your interest, Folks! NoEinstein > > On Jun 28, 2:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the > > works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE > > which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for > > any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of > > time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. NE > > > > Nice! So what you're saying is that you feel free to make things up, > and because of your delusions of grandeur, you're quite sure that what > you make up is correct. > > And so obviously when you put quotation marks around your > statements... > Force is: "An impetous for moving a mass." > and > Power is: "A force which is 'available' to be used continuously, but > which can be used for any practical length of time." > ... the person you were quoting was yourself. > Which is an unusual thing to do, unless you were quoting another > personality. > > You're a hoot to talk to. A certifiable fruitcake with a Napoleon hat > and an unused prescription for antipsychosis meds. > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 6:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As spoken by a tiny speck of a person, PD, who jealously looks up the > > > > tall Hill of Science that I am the King of. NE > > > > You didn't answer where you'd read that awful definition of power. > > > Seriously. > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:52 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Edward: Force is: "An impetous for moving a mass." Power is: "A > > > > > > force which is 'available' to be used continuously, but which can be > > > > > > used for any practical length of time." > > > > > > Good grief. Where did you read that awful definition of power? It's > > > > > among the worst I've ever seen. > > > > > > > Both power and force are > > > > > > measured in pounds. Solar power is a misnomer, since photons are > > > > > > energy, not forceunless converted to electricity, or used to produce > > > > > > steam. The reason? Photons don't have mass. The solar energy > > > > > > hitting one side of an object causes an "immediate" (1/2 phase later) > > > > > > emission of photons of very close to the same interval... except for > > > > > > what I call "the friction of reflection". There is always a slight > > > > > > red shift in reflected light. However, such doesn't indicate there > > > > > > has been a thrust. Rather it indicates that there has been a heating > > > > > > of the object which isn't 100% returned with the radiant energy of the > > > > > > reflection. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 29 Jun 2010 01:08 On Jun 28, 6:53 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Spudnik: The coasting is occurring each and every second. But because of the fact velocities and accelerations are... "per second", the coasting is calculated in seconds, too. The coasting isn't all at the beginning or end. Read my reply, today, to Tim to better understand what's happening. NoEinstein > > all sorts of weird things can happen, > when one starts one's personalized analysis [*], but > isn't it clear that Nein Stein has supposed that > the first three seconds acceleration is compounded > as "coasting," and teh last quarter is taken > to be somehow especially different, > *just because of a particular unit* of time. > > good luck with that ****. > > > I don't see how you can say: > > "In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is > > due to COASTING." > > -- Rep. Waxman and Pres. Obama, les ducs d'oil!http://wlym.com
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 09:23 On Jun 28, 11:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > History will record that I > am the greatest physicist who ever lived for all that I've explained > about the Universe. NoEinstein > Well done, John! You've scored well on the crackpot index with this one sentence alone. 40 points or more! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 09:25 On Jun 29, 12:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 28, 6:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: PD,. the Parasite Dunce, deserves no more than one reply per > day from me. He hangs around me, because I've got lots and lots of > you readers. Thanks for your interest, Folks! NoEinstein Would you care to venture how many readers you have? And would you kindly probe whether that number came from the part of your brain that generates the other psychotic delusions? > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the > > > works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE > > > which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for > > > any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of > > > time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. NE > > > > > > Nice! So what you're saying is that you feel free to make things up, > > and because of your delusions of grandeur, you're quite sure that what > > you make up is correct. > > > And so obviously when you put quotation marks around your > > statements... > > Force is: "An impetous for moving a mass." > > and > > Power is: "A force which is 'available' to be used continuously, but > > which can be used for any practical length of time." > > ... the person you were quoting was yourself. > > Which is an unusual thing to do, unless you were quoting another > > personality. > > > You're a hoot to talk to. A certifiable fruitcake with a Napoleon hat > > and an unused prescription for antipsychosis meds. >
From: NoEinstein on 29 Jun 2010 11:35
On Jun 29, 9:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: Who is the "crackpot": The middle school science teacher who gravitates toward me in order to be "close" to the limelight; who only defends the status quo; and has never made a +new post in his life? ...Or the person who talks his New Science every day and desires to improve the World? I wish PD could here your answers to that! NoEinstein > > On Jun 28, 11:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > History will record that I > > am the greatest physicist who ever lived for all that I've explained > > about the Universe. NoEinstein > > Well done, John! You've scored well on the crackpot index with this > one sentence alone. 40 points or more! > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html |