Science > Physics > Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2006 09:05:07 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
Mike
Plonk and gone.
.
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 10:18:45 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 11:53:02 AM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 12:03:05 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Mike
I thought on those little solar turning thingies
that the collectors are actually impelled
*toward* the light source?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 12:46:17 PM |
|
|
"malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:1161363785.734766.120300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Mike
I thought on those little solar turning thingies
that the collectors are actually impelled
*toward* the light source?
I guess he has been waiting for someone to come up with
this an example of a 'proof' of radiation pressure, so he
could produce some kind of hansonlike sound, and jump
up shouting that this is *not* an example ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadowland" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 01:00:10 PM |
|
|
And here I thought the Solar Wind was a stream of charged subatomic
particles (mainly protons and electrons) flowing into space from the
sun.
Silly me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
21 Oct 2006 01:12:13 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:JX7_g.139627$vG.2485363@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"malibu" wrote
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to approach it
if it has some
on the "sails" as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
. It's that simple.
Idiot.
What?
exert pressure
in the first place?
No, you have a lot of nerve.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
You are the jerk.
You cannot prove that. Can you?
[Dirk]
I guess he has been waiting for someone to come up with
this an example of a 'proof' of radiation pressure, so he
could produce some kind of hansonlike sound, and jump
up shouting that this is *not* an example ;-)
Dirk Vdm
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... whether
this is an example or not is not at all important in the greater
scheme of things. But Dirk, since you have referred to yourself
as "The Third Kacksacker" is it not surprising that you have
spotted their kacksackering above. Therefore I must give you
credit for the humor you have pointed out and shown here. I have
snipped all but the essentials above to show the splendid spacetime
symmetry inherent in their professional kacksackering, whereby
I must point out that the k -word should not be confused with
a similar one that contains an "o" and a "u" instead of the "a".
Here is an example of a highly paid official kacksacker at work:
http://home.tiscali.be/stebune/Animal_files/elephant-*****-patrol.jpg
http://www.thesidewaysguide.com/Images/Skate/SkateFeatures/SkateLists/ShitList/elephant-LG.jpg
How you, Dirk, came to anoint yourself as being the 3rd one
remains somewhat of a mystery me. However I am quite sure
that Androcles knows exactly why that is so... ... ahahahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "sal" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 01:18:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:03:05 -0700, malibu wrote:
Mike wrote:
[ snip interminable argument with "mike" ]
I thought on those little solar turning thingies that the collectors
are actually impelled *toward* the light source?
Radiometers -- which is what you're talking about -- don't work by
radiation pressure. Radiation pressure is far, far too small an effect
to exhibit so easily!
A radiometer typically consists of a light-bulb shaped thing with a
needle in it and a little windmill-like thing balanced on the needle.
The "windmill" has several blades, all black on one side and white on
the other.
The bulb is filled with gas at low pressure.
Shine a light on it, and the "windmill" spins, _toward_ the white
sides of the vanes (in other words, it's like there's something
pushing on the black sides).
The standard explanation of a radiometer is that the black side, since
it reflects less of the light, absorbs more energy from the light
beam, and hence gets slightly warmer. The gas molecules in the bulb,
which are constantly striking the vanes and bouncing off, pick up a
little more energy -- get more of a "kick" -- when they hit the warm
black side than when they hit the cool white side. So the result is
that there's a small but steady stream of slightly warmer air being
blown from the black sides of the vanes, and the result is that the
windmill spins in the direction such that the vanes move _away_ from
the black sides.
With all that said, I've read somewhere that there's a problem with
that explanation, and attempts to model it have failed; there's
apparently something funny going on at the edges of the vanes which is
the "real" explanation. But whatever the details may be it's all
still very much classical in scope and doesn't involve radiation
pressure.
Cheers...
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 02:08:12 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Now I know you're an *****. You're just here to make trouble. You'll
never get it so why bother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 02:27:22 PM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Now I know you're an *****. You're just here to make trouble. You'll
never get it so why bother.
Whenever you cannot rpove your absurd arguments you call the other side
an *****? is that the kind of education you got?
In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you
atatcked me with:
"You must have gone to the matchbook university."
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_540acc128b0709c1
Obviously, you do not understand that there is a field interpretation
of GR which has nothing to do with the geometric interpretation as
Feynman showed.
Then, when I directed you to the proper wiki article about "force
fileds" you contiinued your attack and you claimed:
"Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_f5e0ff25e3c4c6c3
You did not backup your absurd claim by neither mathematical equations
nor experimental facts to show that Newton's second law applies in the
case of light. But you continued your attack:
"What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/967515612bde7572?rnum=41&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_030beb1c8a4e06a6
I never talked about mirrors but even in that case it is not clear that
your argument about light momentum changing direction and resulting in
a force in the Newtonian sense is valid and can be proven.
In short, you must have psychological problems and not a very serious
physics education.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
21 Oct 2006 05:02:05 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
direction exerts
.
an *****? is that the kind of education you got?
In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you
atatcked me with:
"You must have gone to the matchbook university."
In short, you must have psychological problems and not a very serious
physics education.
Mike
----------------------
Mike
dont get impresed by those little gangsters
they are not scientist they are gangsters
no much difference than 500 years ago !!!
the only place in which there is no mass
is in thier gangster brains
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
21 Oct 2006 01:06:26 PM |
|
|
ahahaha... Good exchange, Yehi! Great advice by you to Mike.
IMHO your absolutely best tune was: "NO MASS -- NO PHYSICS"
Take care, Yehi
hanson
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1161424925.271840.18210@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
direction exerts
.
[Mike]
an *****? is that the kind of education you got?
[Igor]
In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you
atatcked me with:
[Mike]
"You must have gone to the matchbook university."
In short, you must have psychological problems and
not a very serious physics education.
Mike
----------------------
[Yehi]
Mike
dont get impresed by those little gangsters
they are not scientist they are gangsters
no much difference than 500 years ago !!!
the only place in which there is no mass
is in thier gangster brains
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 02:50:48 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Now I know you're an *****. You're just here to make trouble. You'll
never get it so why bother.
Whenever you cannot rpove your absurd arguments you call the other side
an *****? is that the kind of education you got?
In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you
atatcked me with:
"You must have gone to the matchbook university."
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_540acc128b0709c1
Obviously, you do not understand that there is a field interpretation
of GR which has nothing to do with the geometric interpretation as
Feynman showed.
Then, when I directed you to the proper wiki article about "force
fileds" you contiinued your attack and you claimed:
"Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_f5e0ff25e3c4c6c3
You did not backup your absurd claim by neither mathematical equations
nor experimental facts to show that Newton's second law applies in the
case of light. But you continued your attack:
"What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/967515612bde7572?rnum=41&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_030beb1c8a4e06a6
I never talked about mirrors but even in that case it is not clear that
your argument about light momentum changing direction and resulting in
a force in the Newtonian sense is valid and can be proven.
In short, you must have psychological problems and not a very serious
physics education.
Mike
I've already pointed out the actual physics involved here. If you're
just too thick to understand it, that's not my problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
21 Oct 2006 09:10:27 AM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
This should provide everything you would need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research.
Google doesn't bite.
You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum
convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you?
Now I know you're an *****. You're just here to make trouble. You'll
never get it so why bother.
Whenever you cannot rpove your absurd arguments you call the other side
an *****? is that the kind of education you got?
In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you
atatcked me with:
"You must have gone to the matchbook university."
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_540acc128b0709c1
Obviously, you do not understand that there is a field interpretation
of GR which has nothing to do with the geometric interpretation as
Feynman showed.
Then, when I directed you to the proper wiki article about "force
fileds" you contiinued your attack and you claimed:
"Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_f5e0ff25e3c4c6c3
You did not backup your absurd claim by neither mathematical equations
nor experimental facts to show that Newton's second law applies in the
case of light. But you continued your attack:
"What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8d46356eae0a9/967515612bde7572?rnum=41&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_030beb1c8a4e06a6
I never talked about mirrors but even in that case it is not clear that
your argument about light momentum changing direction and resulting in
a force in the Newtonian sense is valid and can be proven.
In short, you must have psychological problems and not a very serious
physics education.
Mike
I've already pointed out the actual physics involved here. If you're
just too thick to understand it, that's not my problem.
What physics? you did not show any physics. You just asserted that
light obeys Newto's second law. You got no proof fo that. If you are so
stupid and arrogant to think that your plain assertiosn constitute
physics I feel sorry about you. It seems these unmoderated ngs is the
only place you can advertise your education.
I repeat again: do you have any experimental evidence light reflecting
on a mirror obeys Newton's second law?
If you do I will concede. If you do not, you must be ashamed of
yourself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 10:10:49 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
And you would fail a high school physics test. And you're also making
too many undue assumptions about me. Don't let my handle fool you.
How do you know I'm not an American?
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
There is a somewhat legitimate debate on this issue, but it has to do
with thermodynamics rather than classical mechanics. The main problem
is that energy doesn't have to be conserved locally since it can be
radiated away as heat. Momentum absolutely needs to be conserved since
it is a vector. What would be carrying the excess momentum away?
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
Light pressure is a fact. Get over it. It's very basic physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas? |
20 Oct 2006 11:51:10 AM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Hello Sue,
I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass
of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if
you agree with them:
Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement
accuracy.
1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the
"sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think.
That is not your usual notion of pressure.
Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts
force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple.
Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do
you make light change direction other than making it pass through a
gravity field?
What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic
physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you
can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance.
Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the
mirrror?
Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How
do you think a solar sail works in the first place?
where the hell did you stydy physics?
You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We
should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here.
No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago
in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic
materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that
are not proven for granted. I pitty you.
And you would fail a high school physics test. And you're also making
too many undue assumptions about me. Don't let my handle fool you.
How do you know I'm not an American?
"Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is
open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to
photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and
one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different."
""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any
machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have
any degradation.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895
There is a somewhat legitimate debate on this issue, but it has to do
with thermodynamics rather than classical mechanics. The main problem
is that energy doesn't have to be conserved locally since it can be
radiated away as heat. Momentum absolutely needs to be conserved since
it is a vector. What would be carrying the excess momentum away?
have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by
light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop
playing smart *****.
Light pressure is a fact. Get over it. It's very basic physics.
But you talked about Newton's lsw giving rise to that pressure and not
some other effect. For that, you got no proof, do you?
Get over it. You got no proof Newton's law holds in the case of light
reflecting on a mirror. I am not disputing the pressure. I am disputing
your explanation of it.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
