Re: Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.

On Jun 9, 5:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Sue: You yourself acknowledged that you're a late-comer to the
present post discussion. The discovery that gravity is photon based,
rather than "graviton" based, is part of my own broad contribution to
science. The issues I state in my New Science aren't needing to have
discussions of "relativistic" effects, because I've disproved SR (It
violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.); and I have
invalidated the M-M experiment (It has no control light course.). The
latter shows rubber-ruler Lorentz to be the imbecile of all time in
science, for proposing: "All matter contracts in the direction of
motion, and by identical amounts without regard to the materials or
profiles being contracted. And all objects, once contracted (by
velocity), will remain contracted without the possibility of elastic
rebound... until the velocity is reduced." Lorentz is the world’s
biggest embarrassment to science that you, the burned out "follower"
of science, foster by your relativistic pedantry. Sue, please make
your own '+ new post', and don't pretend that your errant notions
about the universe are needed to resolve TRUE science. — NoEinstein

On Jun 9, 2:20 pm, "Tim" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:58 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:42 pm, "Tim" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 7:41 am, "Tim" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Beyond this thermodynamics remains open in my book.

This is a bit disturbing at this point in the thread.
Reynolds explained Crooks radiometer with
~thermodynamics~ .

Your discussion with Timo seems to be about
Nichols radiometer. The distinction was
made earlier in the thread but you will be
talking past one another if you are not
about the same device and effect.

Thanks for the attempt at resolution, but we are on to other aspects
He seems to think that when you attribute all of a photons energy to
momentum that somehow the energy is independent of that momentum. I'm
not going to buy that, but if you can falsify either of us then I
think that input is very welcome.

I'll take your side because radiation~suction
fits an induction gravity mechanism better.

(Timo can conscript a few students if he
thinks we are ganging up on him.)

We're really not beyond anything
more than

    e = h f ,  e = m c c ,

and such simple product relationships.

I don't see how e = hf applies  where there
may be no atomic absorption.

<<The requirements of energy and momentum
conservation generally forbid the absorption
of photons by free carriers, and the process can
only take place by interband transitions or with
the assistance of phonon absorption or emission. >>

Apologies if I am covering old ground but
it is a long thread and I got here late.

Hey Sue, no problem. I guess one of the key points is that the
radiometer itself is not quite what most of the discussion is about..
Isolation of radiation pressure from the radiation is more like it.
What I now understand and had overlooked for much of the thread is
that the radiation pressure is merely the photon momentum, as is
overlooked at
and likely elsewhere. Nichols work is here:;...

It may be shown by electromagnetic theory, by quantum
theory, or by thermodynamics, making no assumptions as
to the nature of the radiation, that the pressure against
a surface exposed in a space traversed by radiation
uniformly in all directions is equal to one third of the
total radiant energy per unit volume within that space.>>

Hmmm... 1/3 is a pretty nice number and the statement
is very inverse square-ish.  Is it too late to
switch to Timo's team? I am a sore looser.

I see the traversed volume here:
But all of it, half of it or 1/3 of it is not
doing anything for me unless we put some gas in
it and give it a temperature.

Yeah... That's the steam.
Eggs explode  in  my microwave oven because
of radiation pressure.

which is actually linked to in that wiki you just gave.
Some if his argumentation is quite poor imo. There is a 1933 paper by
a woman Bell that I do not have access to which claims to resolve the
study down to 10E-6 torr. I posted that link a few days ago here.

In fairness, I  should read about Timo's light-bullets
a bit closer before we declare victory.

Photons (Phonons?) can be a pretty good model translating
angular momentum in a dielectric. I am becoming
sceptical however because acoustic radiation pressure
is lumped in, apparently as the same effect.

If it is just molecules in the traversed volume
jiggling more, induction gravity should be unscathed
and it really shouldn't matter how you describe the
heating process. light bullets, flaming arrows, or
Ella Fitzgerald on Memorex.

Well, if the photon momentum is taken to be coming from the entire
photon energy, then there is no room for the rotational quality to
contain more energy. This is the logical trouble with the existing

The light is *all* angular momentum until charges in
the gas convert it through interaction. Antenna are
necessary for any directed energy.

(With a minor exception) <<for a highly relativistic
charge the radiation is emitted in a narrow cone
whose axis is aligned along the direction of motion.>>

As you say, we should take freedoms in describing these
things. Ella Fitzgerald may be going a bit far,

The wiki references indicate the principle is the same
for sound so Ella is not "too far" but specifically
included.  Anything that heats the media is what
I understand for the Nichols device.

but as you take
interest in gravitation there is room for a photon relationship with
gravitation to provide gravitational shadowing, which could then
provide the dark matter resolution.

The term shadowing has a negative connotation
from some dubious shielding experiments but yes there
is mechanism for enhancement or attenuation
along a gravitational path so the "shadowing"
label seems to stick.

It is not and bad as a big red "A" on your
blouse  and it might even be a source
of pride when Mercury and Hulse-Taylor are


 - Tim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -