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 5 Jun 2010 18:29 On Jun 4, 5:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Jun 4, 9:59 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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: > > > > 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. > > ! I haven't seen you directly arguing such complete nonsense. That web > page was saying that the direction of motion doesn't affect momentum, > that if an object changes direction and goes, e.g., in the exact > opposite direction, there is no change in momentum. Before you claim > that the argument given there is very similar to yours, you should > understand just how completely defective that argument is. > > > 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 > > ?? Conservation of momentum is why, if the momentum flux of the beam > changes, there must be a matching force on the surface, or, if there > is a force on the surface of the liquid (as we observe > experimentally), then the momentum flux of the beam must change? > > Why do you say this "casts aside" conservation of momentum? It's > directly based on the conservation of momentum. > > > 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? To support my claim above I quote from your own words "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." - http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f064666482b7c3b5 I don't mean to be crass but I do mean to use this medium with accountability, which is one of its strong points. I would like you to find such falsifications in my own writing. The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be operant even with no initial relative velocity between the source and reflector. Further, as far as I can tell none of the existing work on radiation pressure relies upon any red shift argument as the balance of energy. Simply put, if the perfect reflector reflects all of the beams light back toward the source then it cannot have absorbed any energy and hence it will not accelerate. Next, if we do take the accepted photon momentum derived from e = h f then we would witness the entire 1300 watts of power on a square meter of mirror, which should do quite some work according to this accepted momentum equation, particularly for those fond of a doubling effect. Clearly this is not the source of radiation pressure. Even if we go to a black body which absorbs the energy, we must admit that there is no effect; The energy is converted into heat, to be reradiated, and if we assume that this reradiation is isotropic then we need not bother with any directed effect from it within the already corrupted concept of photon momentum. All the while you stand by the photon momentum equation, even while it fails to provide any momentum. This argument on momentum does not necessarily have anything to do with the claimed existence of radiation pressure. The heating effect is nearby to the redshift concept, but again, we are not necessarily talking about radiation pressure here. This is an altogether different effect as far as I can tell. Wouldn't we have to get into thermodyamics more and Planck's energy distribution to discuss this effect? You see, it is a bit crazy how many sidelines there are, and so long as we wish to discuss the radiometer as a means of measuring radiation pressure, well, we are not really discussing a radiometer any more. These fine points you seem not to have acknowledged though I've stated them several times. You have pretty much accepted (I believe) that there will be no effect in the best vacuum labs available. Isn't this enough to admit that you do not believe that radiation pressure exists? As I see it the problem of human as scientist is embedded within this discussion. Upon an 'accepted' theory being posited, for one to break away from that norm places one as a potential quack. And yet, without this freedom of thought, the quality of science will suffer. Such a person has relinquished their freedom to falsify, and in doing so has guaranteed their success within a system where mimicry is a merit. I respect your rights, particularly here on this free medium, but I would point out to you that as a partially accurate sounding board to existing theory you are in some regards helping to disprove that theory. As you argue for the radiation pressure on a perfect reflector in outer space why would you deny that it can be provided in a lab at 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW laser? Should this be enough to turn the spindle of a Crooks style radiometer, or is the friction too great? Really, I must admit that I am growing cynical here, if for no other reason than the fact that your response to this question will be miserable to read. You are a strong poster Timo and I don't mean you any harm. I can't have this discussion without you. I find it poor that people who claim to be scientific will not apply themselves at this level. I ask that I be falsified, and you are the only one who steps forward. I am still open to such falsification, and it could turn on some minor point or discrepancy that we are overlooking. Still, could it be the other way around too? One must give ones self enough credit to declare something false if one is to give one's self enough credit to declare something to be true. Otherwise mimicry ensues, and this is a transparent human factor inculcated within the schooling. I give you as much credit as I can but attempt to hold you accountable. Thanks, Timo, for hanging in there. I half take back my prediction on your response. - Tim > > You don't think the momentum of an object that reverses direction > changes? You don't think that a force (i.e., a change in momentum as > per Newton) is needed to change the direction of an object? > > If one instead, at least provisionally, accepts Newton's laws of > motion as correct, if an object with momentum p reverses direction, > while maintaining the same speed, the final momentum is -p, for a > change in momentum of -2p, with an average force of -2p/t where t is > the time over which the force that causes the change in direction is > applied. If instead, the object is "absorbed", has a sticky collision, > then the change in momentum is -p, only half of the "reflection" > change in momentum. What's so mysterious about radiation pressure on a > reflector being double? >
From: NoEinstein on 5 Jun 2010 19:51 On Jun 5, 3:25 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: A Sun-Moon alignment would reduce the much greater "sun" gravity. But there is a built-in inertia to there being instantaneous changes in Earth's orbit. Here's why: The mass of the Earth is huge compared to the solar energy portion which could be received during a solar eclipse. Gravity forces are due to the ether density near the Earth. That reserve of ether would cause orbit changes to occur slowly. Though I haven't thought out the particulars, it's likely that the solar energy of the Sun on the exact back-side of the moon would momentarily increase the Earth-moon gravity so that there would be no... fly-away Earth. And there is the possibility that if Earth did move outward, that Earth would get back in the correct orbit once the full Sun-Earth gravity returned. Interestingly, I've figured that "shading" could be a means of diverting asteroids or comets on collision courses with the Earth. Explode an aluminum foil bomb(s) along the object's path to shade from the sun, and the object will move out on its tangent, and miss the Earth. An exceedingly low friction bearing is to stick two double-edge razor blades into a soft cork, parallel. Place a sewing needle through two large soda straw, perpendicular. You can use the device as a beam balance that is sensitive enough to weigh a hair. NoEinstein > > On Jun 5, 12:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 1:19 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: Have I turned you... religious? "How long wilt (I) speak > > these things? And how long will the words of (my) mouth be like a > > strong wind?" Answers: I'll keep speaking the truth until the > > largely dull 'scientific' community wises up. Since my New Science > > fits the observations of the entire Universe, I can speak, with > > authority, that no "detail" of my science will change the whole of my > > discoveries. Note: Throughout the Universe, "the wind" is most often > > ether flow caused by pressure differentials. The maximum pressure is > > always closest to where the mass(es) is most concentrated. Photon > > emission (including infrared) depletes part of the ether INSIDE > > matter. That causes a vacuum that keeps drawing in new ether from > > outside. Matter that receives photons from other matter isn't as > > 'deficient' in ether on the facing sides. So, the net 'replacement' > > energy will flow in on the opposing sides. It is the DRAG of the > > flowing ether on the matter on the opposing sides of the masses that > > PUSHES the masses together. I. e.: the moon and the Earth are > > orbitally bound in this way. Thats how gravity works! NoEinstein > > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Dear Timo: You had said, earlier: "This isn't true. The force on the > > > > vanes has been measured in vacuum, and the force is in the opposite > > > > direction to the usual Crookes radiometer thermal force. If not for > > > > friction, the radiometer in vacuum would rotate "backwards"." Since > > > > my New Science has the direction of rotation identical to the Crookes > > > > (black squares trailing), your statement seemed to be saying that my > > > > New Science is wrongwhich it of course, isn't. The wrongly assumed > > > > 'forward' rotation is for the white squares to trail. Friction can > > > > STOP or prevent a rotation, but never change its direction. If you > > > > are wishing to change the subject to "momentum", you are way over your > > > > head. I wrote the book on momentum and KE. PD has fought on those > > > > subjects for three years, and has lost (to me). The world doesn't > > > > need any more PDs! NoEinstein > > > > Job 8:2 > > Hi NoEinstein. I honestly haven't carefully considered your argument, > but I do believe that it will be consistent with gravitational > shadowing, and perhaps a means of describing some of what modern jibe > calls 'dark matter'. > > This is a bit of a scary subject, for it would bring huge interest > from astrologers who concern themselves with the dynamics of such > situations. Will we be forced to admit under this theory that when the > moon passes between the sun and the earth that some of the > gravitational force has disappeared? This is what I mean by > gravitational shadowing. It is an interesting concept, especially when > tied into electromagnetic radiation. I don't feel it is a complete > theory, and feel spread pretty thin trying to consider it within the > radiation pressure claim. Still, they are nearby to each other. > > There are so many possible variations on the Crooks and Nichols > radiometers. There is not necessarily any need to expose more than one > vane of the Crooks device to light in order to experiment, so that the > black/silver conundrum could be deleted. Further I have not found any > analysis on a spinning bearing versus a quartz fiber's friction, but I > presume that a fine enough pin style bearing on a hard jewel concavity > could have a very slight amount of friction relative to the torque of > a fairly distant vane, not to mention more advanced options such as a > magnetic bearing. I've attempted some research on this but found > nothing yet. Any links on this bearing friction analysis are welcome. > I have made some simple bearing out of copper arms resting on a nail > and it is such a nice simple thing that a child can do it. Even wood > on wood bearings are nicely behaved, and can make pretty windvanes, a > few of which I have around my garden. > > - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 5 Jun 2010 20:00 On Jun 5, 4:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 5, 3:25 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Tim: A Sun-Moon alignment would reduce the much greater "sun" > gravity. But there is a built-in inertia to there being instantaneous > changes in Earth's orbit. Here's why: The mass of the Earth is huge > compared to the solar energy portion which could be received during a > solar eclipse. Gravity forces are due to the ether density near the > Earth. That reserve of ether would cause orbit changes to occur > slowly. Though I haven't thought out the particulars, it's likely > that the solar energy of the Sun on the exact back-side of the moon > would momentarily increase the Earth-moon gravity so that there would > be no... fly-away Earth. And there is the possibility that if Earth > did move outward, that Earth would get back in the correct orbit once > the full Sun-Earth gravity returned. > > Interestingly, I've figured that "shading" could be a means of > diverting asteroids or comets on collision courses with the Earth. > Explode an aluminum foil bomb(s) along the object's path to shade from > the sun, and the object will move out on its tangent, and miss the > Earth. > > An exceedingly low friction bearing is to stick two double-edge razor > blades into a soft cork, parallel. Place a sewing needle through two > large soda straw, perpendicular. You can use the device as a beam > balance that is sensitive enough to weigh a hair. NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 12:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 1:19 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > Dear Timo: Have I turned you... religious? "How long wilt (I) speak > > > these things? And how long will the words of (my) mouth be like a > > > strong wind?" Answers: I'll keep speaking the truth until the > > > largely dull 'scientific' community wises up. Since my New Science > > > fits the observations of the entire Universe, I can speak, with > > > authority, that no "detail" of my science will change the whole of my > > > discoveries. Note: Throughout the Universe, "the wind" is most often > > > ether flow caused by pressure differentials. The maximum pressure is > > > always closest to where the mass(es) is most concentrated. Photon > > > emission (including infrared) depletes part of the ether INSIDE > > > matter. That causes a vacuum that keeps drawing in new ether from > > > outside. Matter that receives photons from other matter isn't as > > > 'deficient' in ether on the facing sides. So, the net 'replacement' > > > energy will flow in on the opposing sides. It is the DRAG of the > > > flowing ether on the matter on the opposing sides of the masses that > > > PUSHES the masses together. I. e.: the moon and the Earth are > > > orbitally bound in this way. Thats how gravity works! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Timo: You had said, earlier: "This isn't true. The force on the > > > > > vanes has been measured in vacuum, and the force is in the opposite > > > > > direction to the usual Crookes radiometer thermal force. If not for > > > > > friction, the radiometer in vacuum would rotate "backwards"." Since > > > > > my New Science has the direction of rotation identical to the Crookes > > > > > (black squares trailing), your statement seemed to be saying that my > > > > > New Science is wrongwhich it of course, isn't. The wrongly assumed > > > > > 'forward' rotation is for the white squares to trail. Friction can > > > > > STOP or prevent a rotation, but never change its direction. If you > > > > > are wishing to change the subject to "momentum", you are way over your > > > > > head. I wrote the book on momentum and KE. PD has fought on those > > > > > subjects for three years, and has lost (to me). The world doesn't > > > > > need any more PDs! NoEinstein > > > > > Job 8:2 > > > Hi NoEinstein. I honestly haven't carefully considered your argument, > > but I do believe that it will be consistent with gravitational > > shadowing, and perhaps a means of describing some of what modern jibe > > calls 'dark matter'. > > > This is a bit of a scary subject, for it would bring huge interest > > from astrologers who concern themselves with the dynamics of such > > situations. Will we be forced to admit under this theory that when the > > moon passes between the sun and the earth that some of the > > gravitational force has disappeared? This is what I mean by > > gravitational shadowing. It is an interesting concept, especially when > > tied into electromagnetic radiation. I don't feel it is a complete > > theory, and feel spread pretty thin trying to consider it within the > > radiation pressure claim. Still, they are nearby to each other. > > > There are so many possible variations on the Crooks and Nichols > > radiometers. There is not necessarily any need to expose more than one > > vane of the Crooks device to light in order to experiment, so that the > > black/silver conundrum could be deleted. Further I have not found any > > analysis on a spinning bearing versus a quartz fiber's friction, but I > > presume that a fine enough pin style bearing on a hard jewel concavity > > could have a very slight amount of friction relative to the torque of > > a fairly distant vane, not to mention more advanced options such as a > > magnetic bearing. I've attempted some research on this but found > > nothing yet. Any links on this bearing friction analysis are welcome. > > I have made some simple bearing out of copper arms resting on a nail > > and it is such a nice simple thing that a child can do it. Even wood > > on wood bearings are nicely behaved, and can make pretty windvanes, a > > few of which I have around my garden. > > > - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sun Moon depending on which side; the moon close to the sun or on the other side will both add to gravity and cancel it. Note that a circular orbit has no strength of gravity. This means angles of enregy flow through space determine a partial strength of gravity. Only partial strength applies in all orbits. For light which is parabola path the space flow strength of gravity is always at maximum. Nobody in physics can explain where the strength of gravity goes in a circular orbit. But it is proof of partial gravity at angles approaching it. And that is all there is to it. Mitch Raemsch
From: Timo Nieminen on 5 Jun 2010 20:01 On Jun 6, 8:29 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > To support my claim above I quote from your own words > > "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." > > -http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f064666482b7c3b5 > > I don't mean to be crass but I do mean to use this medium with > accountability, which is one of its strong points. I would like you to > find such falsifications in my own writing. > > The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be operant even with no > initial relative velocity between the source and reflector. Further, > as far as I can tell none of the existing work on radiation pressure > relies upon any red shift argument as the balance of energy. Simply > put, if the perfect reflector reflects all of the beams light back > toward the source then it cannot have absorbed any energy and hence it > will not accelerate. Yes, it will work with no relative velocity between source and reflector. Don't handwave! Say specifically where my redshift/ blueshift derivation is wrong. If it isn't wrong, it's right. > Next, if we do take the accepted photon momentum derived from > e = h f > then we would witness the entire 1300 watts of power on a square meter > of mirror, which should do quite some work according to this accepted > momentum equation, particularly for those fond of a doubling effect. Why? 1300W gives you 4 micronewtons (9 micronewtons if reflected). This gives you "quite some work"? That's a tiny force, expecially considering it's acting on something 1m^2 in area. > You have pretty > much accepted (I believe) that there will be no effect in the best > vacuum labs available. Isn't this enough to admit that you do not > believe that radiation pressure exists? Absolutely not. Go back and read what I wrote! > As you argue for the radiation pressure on a perfect reflector in > outer space why would you deny that it can be provided in a lab at > 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW laser? Should this be enough to turn the > spindle of a Crooks style radiometer, or is the friction too great? > Really, I must admit that I am growing cynical here, if for no other > reason than the fact that your response to this question will be > miserable to read. I don't deny it at all that it would work in a lab at ultra-high vacuum. I said that it does work in the lab at UHV, as seen by the various atom trapping/cooling and BEC experiments. Would it be enough to turn a Crookes radiometer? Depends on the power. Levitate the rotor magnetically, avoid friction. Nichols and Hull avoided friction. > You are a strong poster Timo and I don't mean you any harm. I can't > have this discussion without you. I find it poor that people who claim > to be scientific will not apply themselves at this level. I ask that I > be falsified, and you are the only one who steps forward. I am still > open to such falsification, Are you? I say that UHV experiments have been done, on atoms. I say that radiation pressure forces have been observed on macroscopic objects, between collisions with atoms in the low-pressure gas, so equivalent to UHV in principle. I say that radiation pressure forces would be observable in an UHV experiment. Your response: "why would you deny that it can be provided in a lab at 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW laser?" Apart from the fact that I didn't mention a 10kW laser, nor did you until now, what you are claiming I said is the opposite of what I said. So, is there any point discussing the various experiments if you don't read what I write? Don't avoid the redshift/blueshift derivation then. It's simple, and follows only from the energy of light and conservation of energy. You don't need to assume that light carries momentum; this follows as a consequence.
From: NoEinstein on 5 Jun 2010 20:06
On Jun 5, 6:29 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: My reading speed can't take in all that you are saying. But I don't disagree. The 'missing link' of your Black Body rationale is that the white light coming in has more energy per 'ray'. To have the same infrared radiation, there have to be a higher number of rays. It's likely that it's the number of rays that account for the amount of ether ejected along with the photons. In the Crookes, light reflecting from the white squares, and the ether ejected in the same direction, push some of the argon atoms toward the adjacent (opposed) black squares. It is the mass of those argon atoms which causes the vanes to rotate, not heat "rocketing" from the porous edges of the vanes! NoEinstein > > On Jun 4, 5:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 9:59 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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: > > > > > 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. > > > ! I haven't seen you directly arguing such complete nonsense. That web > > page was saying that the direction of motion doesn't affect momentum, > > that if an object changes direction and goes, e.g., in the exact > > opposite direction, there is no change in momentum. Before you claim > > that the argument given there is very similar to yours, you should > > understand just how completely defective that argument is. > > > > 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 > > > ?? Conservation of momentum is why, if the momentum flux of the beam > > changes, there must be a matching force on the surface, or, if there > > is a force on the surface of the liquid (as we observe > > experimentally), then the momentum flux of the beam must change? > > > Why do you say this "casts aside" conservation of momentum? It's > > directly based on the conservation of momentum. > > > > 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? > > To support my claim above I quote from your own words > > "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." > > -http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f064666482b7c3b5 > > I don't mean to be crass but I do mean to use this medium with > accountability, which is one of its strong points. I would like you to > find such falsifications in my own writing. > > The radiation pressure effect is claimed to be operant even with no > initial relative velocity between the source and reflector. Further, > as far as I can tell none of the existing work on radiation pressure > relies upon any red shift argument as the balance of energy. Simply > put, if the perfect reflector reflects all of the beams light back > toward the source then it cannot have absorbed any energy and hence it > will not accelerate. > > Next, if we do take the accepted photon momentum derived from > e = h f > then we would witness the entire 1300 watts of power on a square meter > of mirror, which should do quite some work according to this accepted > momentum equation, particularly for those fond of a doubling effect. > Clearly this is not the source of radiation pressure. Even if we go to > a black body which absorbs the energy, we must admit that there is no > effect; The energy is converted into heat, to be reradiated, and if we > assume that this reradiation is isotropic then we need not bother with > any directed effect from it within the already corrupted concept of > photon momentum. All the while you stand by the photon momentum > equation, even while it fails to provide any momentum. This argument > on momentum does not necessarily have anything to do with the claimed > existence of radiation pressure. > > The heating effect is nearby to the redshift concept, but again, we > are not necessarily talking about radiation pressure here. This is an > altogether different effect as far as I can tell. Wouldn't we have to > get into thermodyamics more and Planck's energy distribution to > discuss this effect? You see, it is a bit crazy how many sidelines > there are, and so long as we wish to discuss the radiometer as a means > of measuring radiation pressure, well, we are not really discussing a > radiometer any more. These fine points you seem not to have > acknowledged though I've stated them several times. You have pretty > much accepted (I believe) that there will be no effect in the best > vacuum labs available. Isn't this enough to admit that you do not > believe that radiation pressure exists? > > As I see it the problem of human as scientist is embedded within this > discussion. Upon an 'accepted' theory being posited, for one to break > away from that norm places one as a potential quack. And yet, without > this freedom of thought, the quality of science will suffer. Such a > person has relinquished their freedom to falsify, and in doing so has > guaranteed their success within a system where mimicry is a merit. I > respect your rights, particularly here on this free medium, but I > would point out to you that as a partially accurate sounding board to > existing theory you are in some regards helping to disprove that > theory. > > As you argue for the radiation pressure on a perfect reflector in > outer space why would you deny that it can be provided in a lab at > 10E-11 torrs with a 10kW laser? Should this be enough to turn the > spindle of a Crooks style radiometer, or is the friction too great? > Really, I must admit that I am growing cynical here, if for no other > reason than the fact that your response to this question will be > miserable to read. > > You are a strong poster Timo and I don't mean you any harm. I can't > have this discussion without you. I find it poor that people who claim > to be scientific will not apply themselves at this level. I ask that I > be falsified, and you are the only one who steps forward. I am still > open to such falsification, and it could turn on some minor point or > discrepancy that we are overlooking. Still, could it be the other way > around too? One must give ones self enough credit to declare something > false if one is to give one's self enough credit to declare something > to be true. Otherwise mimicry ensues, and this is a transparent human > factor inculcated within the schooling. I give you as much credit as I > can but attempt to hold you accountable. Thanks, Timo, for hanging in > there. I half take back my prediction on your response. > > - Tim > > > > > > > You don't think the momentum of an object that reverses direction > > changes? You don't think that a force (i.e., a change in momentum as > > per Newton) is needed to change the direction of an object? > > > If one instead, at least provisionally, accepts Newton's laws of > > motion as correct, if an object with momentum p reverses direction, > > while maintaining the same speed, the final momentum is -p, for a > > change in momentum of -2p, with an average force of -2p/t where t is > > the time over which the force that causes the change in direction is > > applied. If instead, the object is "absorbed", has a sticky collision, > > then the change in momentum is -p, only half of the "reflection" > > change in momentum. What's so mysterious about radiation pressure on a > > reflector being double?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |