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: Tim BandTech.com on 3 Jun 2010 17:09 On Jun 2, 6:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 3, 12:46 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. There are a number of weak points in the post that I am responding to, but I want to focus on one for now. I'd like to come back to some of the others later, but here is one crux that still is unanswered. The link http://www.mcallister.com/vacuum2.html#params exposes that modern vacuum apparatus is capable of 10E-11 torrs(mm of mercury). One experiment exposing the Nichols or Crooks radiometers operating cleanly at this gas pressure would be quite a piece of evidence. Nichols got down to .02 torrs, and had an anomaly between .05 and .02. As you identified, there is a confluence between radiation absorption as temperature and a figure of radiation pressure. Specific dependence upon atmospheric effects is already understood. The word 'radiometer' is intended as a device to measure the amount of radiation. We would like a 'radiation pressure meter' which will not generate any behaviors due to thermal absorption from the 'radiation energy' which I believe you will agree is encompassed in e = hv as a sum of photon energies. Because the 'radiation energy' is so substantial at 1300 W/m/m for sunlight then eliminating the effect of this large energy which could easily power quite some motive work is a substantial problem for the verification of the claimed pittance that is 'radiation pressure'. I see no work so far that proves the existence of radiation pressure since all of the experiments that I have seen do rely upon some gas effects. The only claimed exception that I've read so far is Nichols, and his logic is falsifiable. None of the experiments you've studied consider a solid dielectric placed in a vacuum of 10E-11 torrs, which would be a fine experiment with a Nichols torsion fiber style experiment. Here is a link I just came accross very similar to your own work though more concerned with semiconductors: http://www.colin-baxter.com/academic/research/downloads/prl063802.pdf I do not have access to pay for links like the aip.org link you site about optical tweezers. Here is another link in support of the challenge to radiation pressure's validity: "It is therefore much more likely that in a given case the apparent 'radiation pressure' is caused either by thermal surface effects or electrons which are released from the surface by the radiation." - http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#radpress This would really be something if Nichols anomaly was repeatable and turned out to be a mild photoelectric effect. It was after all an inversion. A freed electron would exit the silvered side; not the insulated glass side. The photovoltaic cell is the rectifier that converts AC light to DC. You've ignored the instantaneous momentum argument I made haven't you? This AC/DC problem, well, now I'm going too far again. One thing at a time, eh? - Tim > > > > > > 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: Timo Nieminen on 3 Jun 2010 17:59 On Jun 4, 7:09 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > As you identified, there is a confluence between radiation absorption > as temperature and a figure of radiation pressure. Not quite. For a _given experiment_, the radiation pressure and the temperature increase are proportional. This is because the absorbed power, and hence the temperature increase, and the radiation pressure are both proportional to the radiation power. Across experiments, this isn't so. As already said, R. V. Jones, and pretty much all optical tweezers experiments. That the forces in optical tweezers on weakly depend on the absorption (over orders of magnitude of change in the absorption and heating) while strongly depending on the refractive index amply demonstrates that the effect is not thermal. What shows the weak dependence on absorption? Trapping the same object at different wavelengths, with different absorption at the different wavelengths, and looking at the effect on the forces; this has been done to look at thermal damage to the trapped object, especially living trapped objects. Trapping at 1064nm in water vs heavy water, which have very different absorption, gives very different temperature rises. We've trapped objects that absorb about 10x as much as water, and therefore get significantly hotter (we can see the effects of convection at high power), and objects that absorb significantly less than the surrounding water. The temperature makes little difference. > Specific dependence > upon atmospheric effects is already understood. The word 'radiometer' > is intended as a device to measure the amount of radiation. We would > like a 'radiation pressure meter' which will not generate any > behaviors due to thermal absorption from the 'radiation energy' which > I believe you will agree is encompassed in > e = hv > as a sum of photon energies. Because the 'radiation energy' is so > substantial at 1300 W/m/m for sunlight then eliminating the effect of > this large energy which could easily power quite some motive work is a > substantial problem for the verification of the claimed pittance that > is 'radiation pressure'. This is why the most reliable experiments use reflection/refraction by dielectric surfaces to change the momentum of the light. But one can see radiation pressure due to absorption. Some freely-available references for you: Trapping polymer molecules, with a discussion of thermal effects: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702044 Forces and torques due to absorption: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310003 and more details: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310022 For comparison, torques not due to absorption: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0308113 Note that the same theory works for both cases, absorption and no absorption. > I see no work so far that proves the > existence of radiation pressure since all of the experiments that I > have seen do rely upon some gas effects. The only claimed exception > that I've read so far is Nichols, and his logic is falsifiable. None > of the experiments you've studied consider a solid dielectric placed > in a vacuum of 10E-11 torrs, which would be a fine experiment with a > Nichols torsion fiber style experiment. Re: "all of the experiments that I have seen do rely upon some gas effects." Most optical tweezers experiments are done in liquid (the ones done in air do have significant "gas effects"), Jones's experiments were in liquid. The BEC experiments require very good vacuums. True, they don't use a solid dielectric, unless you consider an atom to be a solid dielectric. What difference does that make? Radiation pressure is radiation pressure whether it acts on an atom or a group of atoms. > Here is another link in support of the challenge to radiation > pressure's validity: > "It is therefore much more likely that in a given case the apparent > 'radiation pressure' is caused either by thermal surface effects or > electrons which are released from the surface by the radiation." > -http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#radpress That is a _really_ bad webpage! Just consider its claim: "Even if one assumes a momentum, a radiation pressure force could only be caused by a momentum change dp/dt, but this is not possible because the speed of light c has to be constant" (1) Direction of motion matters when it comes to momentum, (2) refractive index. > You've ignored the > instantaneous momentum argument I made haven't you? This AC/DC > problem, well, now I'm going too far again. One thing at a time, eh? Your comment: "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."? Acoustic radiation pressure is observed. The ping pong ball _will_ accelerate. How does this not address this argument? In the optical experiments, the time-averaged force is what is observed. The predicted time-averaged force, which agrees with the observations, is the average of the predicted instantaneous force, so what reason is there to think that the predicted instantaneous force is wrong? So where lies the problem? What did you think of my simple derivation of radiation pressure? What do you disagree with in it? Consider a steady beam of monchromatic light incident on a stationary reflector. Each optical cycle has energy E (i.e., the total energy of a length of the beam equal to 1 wavelength). The incident power P is thus P = Ef, where f is the optical frequency.The output power is the same, since the reflected beam is identical, except for the reversed direction. Since the reflector is stationary, no work is being done on it. Now change to a coordinate system where the reflector is in motion, at a speed v away from the source of the incident beam. (For simplicity, assume v << c.) The incident beam is now blue-shifted, and the frequency of the incident beam in this coordinate system is now f(1+v/ c), and the power is P_in = Ef(1+v/c). Similarly, the reflected beam now has power P_out = Ef(1-v/c). Since energy is conserved, the difference in power must be the rate of doing work on the reflector. P_reflector = P_in - P_out = 2Efv/c = 2vP/c. Since P_reflector = F_reflector * v, we have: F_reflector = 2P/c, which is the radiation pressure due to complete reflection at normal incidence. And, again, one can predict all of this just from the Lorentz force. So, fundamentally, electromagnetic radiation pressure is just what one would expect, given that electric motors etc work. If there is no radiation pressure due to electromagnetic waves, then the Lorentz force is bunk. Thus, some choices: (1) light is not an electromagnetic wave (but radiation forces and torques have been done at RF), (2) the Lorentz force is bunk, and electric motors work by some other mystery mechanism, (3) the forces which have been measured at optical frequencies and RF, and which, when thermal effects are made observably negligible - that is, their effect is shown to be small - agree with prediction based on the Lorentz force or equivalent, are really radiation pressure. Seriously, I think (3) is the best- supported of these choices. -- Timo
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 18:09 how can there be "pressure" from a massless wave?... I know, "photonics" is a huge field, but you don't have to use equations with momentum to describe lightwaves; the photoelectrical effect is electronic. how do photons interact with atoms, excepting electromagnetically via electron orbitals? thusNso: current Sci ... no, it's in Nude Scientist, issue-before-last cover- article, almost like it's New Science, covering the main three orbital variations of Milankovitch. now, it is just not true that humans cannot (or aren't) affecting the climate; the tiny differences of insolation form the orbitals probably are not "forcing" anything, just tweaking them. any real theory of glaciation has to account for "glass house gasses" as the primary forcers, and how the biota & tectonic systems interact with that. > There is not a single article anywhere describing what the Earth's > orbit is doing as it moves along its annual circumference so this is > http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.ht > Commentariolis thusNso: yes, but special relativity assumes general relativity in the "twin paradox," because acceleration is required to get the home-leaving twin, relativistical (I mean, Duh .-) > Special Relativity considers that relativistic effects such as time > dilation and length contraction are perspective effects that occur > when an observer observes an object moving relative to himself. thusNso: anyway, Einstien's **** is not really dysprovable, if it is merely a matter of odd interpretations (viz, *photon* means "particle" ipso facto "herr Albert thought, So.") thusNso: always the "doubling" of CO2 is used as an outcome in the GCMs, when it is clear that there would be change of the whole phase of the weather, before that was reached (if you are familiar with studies of the Quaternary Period, Shackleton et al e.g.). 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. A rational EIR'd 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 & unsanitary, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows, they just don't last so long.) 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 BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrageur rip-off! http://wlym.com
From: Tim BandTech.com on 4 Jun 2010 07:59 On Jun 3, 5:59 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 4, 7:09 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > As you identified, there is a confluence between radiation absorption > > as temperature and a figure of radiation pressure. > > Not quite. For a _given experiment_, the radiation pressure and the > temperature increase are proportional. This is because the absorbed > power, and hence the temperature increase, and the radiation pressure > are both proportional to the radiation power. > > Across experiments, this isn't so. As already said, R. V. Jones, and > pretty much all optical tweezers experiments. That the forces in > optical tweezers on weakly depend on the absorption (over orders of > magnitude of change in the absorption and heating) while strongly > depending on the refractive index amply demonstrates that the effect > is not thermal. > > What shows the weak dependence on absorption? Trapping the same object > at different wavelengths, with different absorption at the different > wavelengths, and looking at the effect on the forces; this has been > done to look at thermal damage to the trapped object, especially > living trapped objects. Trapping at 1064nm in water vs heavy water, > which have very different absorption, gives very different temperature > rises. We've trapped objects that absorb about 10x as much as water, > and therefore get significantly hotter (we can see the effects of > convection at high power), and objects that absorb significantly less > than the surrounding water. The temperature makes little difference. > > > Specific dependence > > upon atmospheric effects is already understood. The word 'radiometer' > > is intended as a device to measure the amount of radiation. We would > > like a 'radiation pressure meter' which will not generate any > > behaviors due to thermal absorption from the 'radiation energy' which > > I believe you will agree is encompassed in > > e = hv > > as a sum of photon energies. Because the 'radiation energy' is so > > substantial at 1300 W/m/m for sunlight then eliminating the effect of > > this large energy which could easily power quite some motive work is a > > substantial problem for the verification of the claimed pittance that > > is 'radiation pressure'. > > This is why the most reliable experiments use reflection/refraction by > dielectric surfaces to change the momentum of the light. But one can > see radiation pressure due to absorption. > > Some freely-available references for you: > > Trapping polymer molecules, with a discussion of thermal effects:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702044 > > Forces and torques due to absorption:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310003 > and more details:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310022 > > For comparison, torques not due to absorption:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0308113 > > Note that the same theory works for both cases, absorption and no > absorption. > > > I see no work so far that proves the > > existence of radiation pressure since all of the experiments that I > > have seen do rely upon some gas effects. The only claimed exception > > that I've read so far is Nichols, and his logic is falsifiable. None > > of the experiments you've studied consider a solid dielectric placed > > in a vacuum of 10E-11 torrs, which would be a fine experiment with a > > Nichols torsion fiber style experiment. > > Re: "all of the experiments that I have seen do rely upon some gas > effects." Most optical tweezers experiments are done in liquid (the > ones done in air do have significant "gas effects"), Jones's > experiments were in liquid. The BEC experiments require very good > vacuums. True, they don't use a solid dielectric, unless you consider > an atom to be a solid dielectric. What difference does that make? > Radiation pressure is radiation pressure whether it acts on an atom or > a group of atoms. > > > Here is another link in support of the challenge to radiation > > pressure's validity: > > "It is therefore much more likely that in a given case the apparent > > 'radiation pressure' is caused either by thermal surface effects or > > electrons which are released from the surface by the radiation." > > -http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#radpress > > That is a _really_ bad webpage! Just consider its claim: "Even if one > assumes a momentum, a radiation pressure force could only be caused by > a momentum change dp/dt, but this is not possible because the speed of > light c has to be constant" (1) Direction of motion matters when it > comes to momentum, (2) refractive index. Yes, and this is very similar to the arguments that I have provided. The conservation of momentum is a strict principle, one that you have already cast aside in your argument about changing momenta as media change in dielectric quality. You already accepted once the farce of the reflector as a doubling agent of radition pressure effects, and then go back to supporting it. What do you have to say about conservation of momentum? > > > You've ignored the > > instantaneous momentum argument I made haven't you? This AC/DC > > problem, well, now I'm going too far again. One thing at a time, eh? > > Your comment: "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."? > > Acoustic radiation pressure is observed. The ping pong ball _will_ > accelerate. How does this not address this argument? > > In the optical experiments, the time-averaged force is what is > observed. The predicted time-averaged force, which agrees with the > observations, is the average of the predicted instantaneous force, so > what reason is there to think that the predicted instantaneous force > is wrong? Well, for one, there is an observation that a black surface is drawn toward the light rather than being driven away from the light, but I'm not that strong on this as an argument to hinge upon since the information is not well presented. I can accept that in a plane wave of acoustic pressure that the ping pong ball will accelerate in an AC fashion, that is to say a sinusoidal acceleration, yielding no DC acceleration, which is what the radiation pressure claim is, and thus that it might propel spacecraft with no need of thrusters, which I am currently in disbelief of. Even if you were correct about a ping pong ball accelerating in an acoustic field, it would not be wise to hinge this discussion on that sideline of thought. You have not provided any evidence beyond a ping pong ball with a bolt fastened to it sitting in the magnetic field of a loudspeaker, which I actually provided as you suggested to youtube this effect. Please provide a more apt link if you wish. I did not go on to look at every video on youtube and instead was so displeased with this first one that I plopped it down, but you do seem to be serious so please do give us a good link. When the ball is in the proximity of the speaker cone we will have more dynamics to worry about than in a plane field, so again I say this may not be a wise point to hinge any discussion of electromagnetic radiation pressure. Within your own analysis of radiation pressure you use cross products of the E field. We should accept that the E field is sinusoidal, and so contains instantaneous zeros. These zeros are points in time at which your effect has gone to zero. This was somewhat the argument that I was making, which you've somewhat demolished by throwing in the ping pong ball. Really I am trying to discorrupt this thread, as my last post went toward one simple argument, and by not addressing that argument you are providing a form of evidence. You have backed off of any radiation pressure effect in vacuum and instead support it in fluid mediums only. This is evidence. > > So where lies the problem? > > What did you think of my simple derivation of radiation pressure? What > do you disagree with in it? If this is the expressions with velocity and red shifting then I have commented in line on that. Summarily the radiation pressure effect should be apparent at zero velocity and so there is a fault in that attempt. > > Consider a steady beam of monchromatic light incident on a stationary > reflector. Each optical cycle has energy E (i.e., the total energy of > a length of the beam equal to 1 wavelength). The incident power P is > thus P = Ef, where f is the optical frequency.The output power is the > same, since the reflected beam is identical, except for the reversed > direction. Since the reflector is stationary, no work is being done on > it. OK. You've somewhat legitimated my sinusoid argument elsewhere here, but yes, I am following this construction here. > > Now change to a coordinate system where the reflector is in motion, at > a speed v away from the source of the incident beam. (For simplicity, > assume v << c.) The incident beam is now blue-shifted, and the > frequency of the incident beam in this coordinate system is now f(1+v/ > c), and the power is P_in = Ef(1+v/c). Similarly, the reflected beam > now has power P_out = Ef(1-v/c). In the frame of the reflector the light will appear redder, since the reflector is moving away from the source by v, so I disagree with your blue-shifted claim of the incident beam. As this light will be reflected and returned toward its source I believe that an observer in the source frame will observe light that is red shifted relative to the source off of that receding reflector. Will the light be doubly red shifted to this observer over an observer in the reflector's frame? I do fear that we could suffer some breakdowns here as to whether or not the reflector is perfect, well, if it does not return all the energy that it received then it is not a perfect reflector. As long as we are studying breakdowns we may also admit that the photon takes an interval of zero seconds to do all of this that we are discussing. We are more engaged at this part in relativistic cosmology than in radiation pressure. > > Since energy is conserved, the difference in power must be the rate of > doing work on the reflector. Well, this is a different topic isn't it? We are supposed to be able to start with a Nichols radiometer in stasis; no acceleration or velocity relative to the lab bench. I do find the possibility of red shifting light a more plausible way to extract energy, but this is not at all the claim of radiation pressure. We need to get an acceleration at zero velocity in order to accept radiation pressure. > > P_reflector = P_in - P_out = 2Efv/c = 2vP/c. > > Since P_reflector = F_reflector * v, we have: > > F_reflector = 2P/c, > > which is the radiation pressure due to complete reflection at normal > incidence. > > And, again, one can predict all of this just from the Lorentz force. > So, fundamentally, electromagnetic radiation pressure is just what one > would expect, given that electric motors etc work. If there is no > radiation pressure due to electromagnetic waves, then the Lorentz > force is bunk. Thus, some choices: (1) light is not an electromagnetic > wave (but radiation forces and torques have been done at RF), (2) the > Lorentz force is bunk, and electric motors work by some other mystery > mechanism, (3) the forces which have been measured at optical > frequencies and RF, and which, when thermal effects are made > observably negligible - that is, their effect is shown to be small - > agree with prediction based on the Lorentz force or equivalent, are > really radiation pressure. Seriously, I think (3) is the best- > supported of these choices. > > -- > Timo I really appreciate your effort here Timo, and I do not want to detract from or inhibit your own thinking. Still, wouldn't you think that the Nichols radiometer could act as a radiation pressure meter if it were put in a strong vacuum? Why rely upon fluid media when vacuums of 10E-11 torr exist? You are quite a dodger on this simplistic thinking. I feel very hesitant heading for relativity theory when the claims are supposedly satisfiable on a lab bench with a laser source and vane in vacuum, all right there on the bench. Yes, it is interesting to consider the red shift of the light off of the moving reflector especially in terms of energy conservation, but it is not the same problem. - Tim
From: NoEinstein on 4 Jun 2010 14:30
On Jun 3, 3:23 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: I expected you to ask about "the length" of my comments. There is a difference between what you write and what I write: First, the '+new post' is mine, not yours. I'm aware that there are thousands of people reading what I say. I'm also aware that few of those bother to go to the original post to read about what we are discussing. Because I know my subject, I willingly explain things from square one, with minor differences in the subtleties. I wish to be as clear as possible, so that the largest number of people will agree with what I say. Second, if you (knee-jerk) question any part of my New Science, you force me to reply aggressively so that the many readers will know that I know from whence I come. When skimming over your replies, I sense that the latter 2/3rds is copied, as though you are BUYING credibility with verbiage. If you wish for my replies to be shorter, stop making unjustified put-downs of any of my science truths. If I feel you are a friend rather than an adversary, I'll be more likely to reply shorter. That said, I only have so many hours in a day. I'm about "at" my talking limit, now. Don't reply to me... just for recreation. I only have time for work! NoEinstein > > 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. |