Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #509836 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-27 07:28 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-19 09:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 07:28 -0700
'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 18:16 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 07:17 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 15:18 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-29 02:22 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-10 21:18 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:51 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-11 01:04 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:49 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:26 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:31 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:41 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:51 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:44 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 11:00 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-11 18:44 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:51 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:17 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:45 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:50 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:01 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:10 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 13:44 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 07:51 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 21:28 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 14:35 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:31 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 15:22 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 14:43 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 19:39 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 18:06 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 20:23 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 19:37 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 00:39 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 15:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:25 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:15 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:31 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-16 16:09 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' [OT] Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 18:47 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 11:09 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 12:40 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:17 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:46 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:42 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 11:21 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 12:58 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:19 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:49 +0200
light is magneto-electrical noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 19:10 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 13:49 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 20:50 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 14:03 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 00:43 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 17:53 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 09:34 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:05 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:36 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:00 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:22 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:30 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:56 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:17 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 11:26 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 13:01 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:14 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 10:43 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 13:07 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:21 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:07 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-11 01:03 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:40 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 13:41 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 14:54 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 08:13 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:46 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 09:48 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:00 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 13:45 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 16:01 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 07:07 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:39 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 20:29 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 19:14 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> - 2015-08-13 19:28 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-15 15:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 12:23 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:04 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:32 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:33 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:02 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 19:24 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:31 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 22:16 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 22:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:45 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 22:32 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 22:57 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 23:22 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 23:34 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 23:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:43 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 08:07 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 21:40 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 22:35 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 23:36 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 23:50 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 07:56 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:48 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 13:41 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:27 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 14:42 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 14:01 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 20:21 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 01:26 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 06:07 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 08:05 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:04 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 19:14 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 09:12 -0700
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 18:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 'Dark Matter' [OT] |
| Message-ID | <mqqeni$tjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514318 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 18:09 R Kym Horsell napsal(a): >> What's causing Global Warming, Will? > Why do you care, Sam? > Myself, I do not know and that is fine with me. > There many more important things that I do not know! > -- Will Janoschkadiction, 21 Apr 2012 > While I was disputing with Will a lot in past, this quote is fine, regarding real life. We have to choose from what we do not know to get it known for us. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 10:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpi3b$678$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513315 |
Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:23 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Therefore, photon's momentum is p = hf/c in the x direction, and the >> recoil must be -hf/c (that is, in the -x direction) to keep the sum zero >> (and conserve momentum). > > Again, no. Whatever could recoil is _not_ a photon; it has a mass not equal > to zero. Its momentum is calculated *differently* than that of a photon. > Sure, but it does change momentum conservation. If massless photon has momentum vec p, recoiling massive ion get momentum difference -vec p. Eventual relativistic effects do not change it. The ion velocity change has in such a case to be calculated by SR formula from the momentum change, and not otherwise. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3987332.uPPTNPNPaI@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514170 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:23 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Therefore, photon's momentum is p = hf/c in the x direction, and the
>>> recoil must be -hf/c (that is, in the -x direction) to keep the sum zero
>>> (and conserve momentum).
>> Again, no. Whatever could recoil is _not_ a photon; it has a mass not
>> equal to zero. Its momentum is calculated *differently* than that of a
>> photon.
>
> Sure, but it does change momentum conservation.
Come again?
> If massless photon has momentum vec p, recoiling massive ion get momentum
> difference -vec p.
In the ion’s rest frame, if there is only one ion and one photon, and one
photon for each ion. No doubt about *that*.
> Eventual relativistic effects do not change it.
Nobody claimed it would. You are taking statements out of context.
> The ion velocity change has in such a case
> to be calculated by SR formula
> from the momentum change, and not otherwise.
Exactly. Which also means that it has to be taken into account how much of
the photon’s energy comes from or is converted into kinetic energy, with the
additional caveat that additional kinetic energy does not need to mean the
kinetic energy of the receiving object itself (but could as well be that of
its constituents).
You really should read the whole posting and the whole discussion before you
post a corrective follow-up. The people whom I have debated have claimed
that “Newtonian mechanics” suffices to describe the process because of “low
speeds” on “the surface of the sun” [sic], that *the Sun* would be recoiling
from photon emissions in the opposite direction of “the emission” (the same
as *everything* that absorbs photons), and that you could compute that
“recoiling speed” in a simple way, respectively. And probably I have
forgotten to mention more of the nonsense that they claimed.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 12:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpp8a$21m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514177 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 11:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:23 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Therefore, photon's momentum is p = hf/c in the x direction, and the >>>> recoil must be -hf/c (that is, in the -x direction) to keep the sum zero >>>> (and conserve momentum). >>> Again, no. Whatever could recoil is _not_ a photon; it has a mass not >>> equal to zero. Its momentum is calculated *differently* than that of a >>> photon. >> >> Sure, but it does change momentum conservation. > > Come again? Some basic facts come again and again. > >> If massless photon has momentum vec p, recoiling massive ion get momentum >> difference -vec p. > > In the ion’s rest frame, if there is only one ion and one photon, and one > photon for each ion. No doubt about *that*. It is unwise to set frame by this way. Isolated system in context of momentum means, there is no momentum exchange. If there is, than there is simple superposition of momentum conservation and exchange. If Alice gives Bob 2 backs ids not affected by fact Tom gave to each of them 3 one. If there are 2 other ions, the momentum change can be redistributed to them, but will not disappear. > >> Eventual relativistic effects do not change it. > > Nobody claimed it would. You are taking statements out of context. then there was no need to mess with relativistic formulas. > >> The ion velocity change has in such a case >> to be calculated by SR formula >> from the momentum change, and not otherwise. > > Exactly. Which also means that it has to be taken into account how much of > the photon’s energy comes from or is converted into kinetic energy, with the > additional caveat that additional kinetic energy does not need to mean the > kinetic energy of the receiving object itself (but could as well be that of > its constituents). Kinetic energy is not much relevant, as it is not elastic interaction. Kinetic energy follows here momentum conservation. KE of moving object will be reflected in higher/lower energy and higher or lower momentum of departing photon. > > You really should read the whole posting and the whole discussion before you I did. You really should expect the worst at others. > post a corrective follow-up. The people whom I have debated have claimed > that “Newtonian mechanics” suffices to describe the process because of “low > speeds” on “the surface of the sun” [sic], that *the Sun* would be recoiling > from photon emissions in the opposite direction of “the emission” (the same > as *everything* that absorbs photons), and that you could compute that > “recoiling speed” in a simple way, respectively. And probably I have > forgotten to mention more of the nonsense that they claimed. > At accepted error level, Newtonian mechanic IS sufficient. But without counting, I estimate the recoiling effect is minimal. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6546704.bo8BDzL9iD@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514189 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 11:09 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:23 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Therefore, photon's momentum is p = hf/c in the x direction, and the
>>>>> recoil must be -hf/c (that is, in the -x direction) to keep the sum
>>>>> zero (and conserve momentum).
>>>> Again, no. Whatever could recoil is _not_ a photon; it has a mass not
>>>> equal to zero. Its momentum is calculated *differently* than that of a
>>>> photon.
>>> Sure, but it does change momentum conservation.
>> Come again?
>
> Some basic facts come again and again.
“Come again?” is colloquial English for “I beg your pardon?” which means
“Please repeat what you just said, I did not understand it.” Which, in this
case, was sarcastic, of course, as you wrote nonsense.
>>> If massless photon has momentum vec p, recoiling massive ion get
>>> momentum difference -vec p.
>> In the ion’s rest frame, if there is only one ion and one photon, and one
>> photon for each ion. No doubt about *that*.
>
> It is unwise to set frame by this way.
No, it is very wise, as it points out the difference between the velocity of
a particle that is standing still with respect to the rest of the Sun, and a
particle that is moving with respect to the rest of the Sun, and a moving
Sun. Different to what was claimed.
>>> Eventual relativistic effects do not change it.
>> Nobody claimed it would. You are taking statements out of context.
>
> then there was no need to mess with relativistic formulas.
You must be joking. You misrepresented what I said.
>>> The ion velocity change has in such a case
>>> to be calculated by SR formula
>>> from the momentum change, and not otherwise.
>> Exactly. Which also means that it has to be taken into account how much
>> of the photon’s energy comes from or is converted into kinetic energy,
>> with the additional caveat that additional kinetic energy does not need
>> to mean the kinetic energy of the receiving object itself (but could as
>> well be that of its constituents).
>
> Kinetic energy is not much relevant, as it is not elastic interaction.
Nonsense. It is high kinetic energy of nuclei in the Sun that allows
tunneling through the Coulomb barrier, making nuclear fusion possible
in the first place. Of course, that kinetic energy is in part transferred
to particles created, such as photon. That is why they are *gamma* photons
in and near the core.
> Kinetic energy follows here momentum conservation.
Yes (insofar as one is willing to ascribe coherent meaning to that
incoherent statement). There is a “p” for momentum in
E_kin = √((m c²)² + (p c)²) − m c².
> KE of moving object will be reflected in higher/lower energy and higher
> or lower momentum of departing photon.
AISB.
>> You really should read the whole posting and the whole discussion before
>> you
>
> I did. You really should expect the worst at others.
If you did, then there is are only two possibilities left: you did not read
carefully enough, or you did read it carefully but decided to misrepresent
what I said. Given your other straw man arguments, the latter is more
likely.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq7ks$u2p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514284 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:17 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > > “Come again?” is colloquial English for “I beg your pardon?” which means > “Please repeat what you just said, I did not understand it.” Which, in this > case, was sarcastic, of course, as you wrote nonsense. When you do not understand does not mean it must be nonsense. It just mean you do not understand. You could guess I cannot catch all language word plays. > >>>> If massless photon has momentum vec p, recoiling massive ion get >>>> momentum difference -vec p. >>> In the ion’s rest frame, if there is only one ion and one photon, and one >>> photon for each ion. No doubt about *that*. >> >> It is unwise to set frame by this way. > > No, it is very wise, as it points out the difference between the velocity of > a particle that is standing still with respect to the rest of the Sun, and a > particle that is moving with respect to the rest of the Sun, and a moving > Sun. Different to what was claimed. Concerning momentum change, not momentum itself, it does not matter. > >>>> Eventual relativistic effects do not change it. >>> Nobody claimed it would. You are taking statements out of context. >> >> then there was no need to mess with relativistic formulas. > > You must be joking. You misrepresented what I said. For momentum conservation idea one need not them. One need them for momentum calculation. > >>>> The ion velocity change has in such a case >>>> to be calculated by SR formula >>>> from the momentum change, and not otherwise. >>> Exactly. Which also means that it has to be taken into account how much >>> of the photon’s energy comes from or is converted into kinetic energy, >>> with the additional caveat that additional kinetic energy does not need >>> to mean the kinetic energy of the receiving object itself (but could as >>> well be that of its constituents). >> >> Kinetic energy is not much relevant, as it is not elastic interaction. > > Nonsense. It is high kinetic energy of nuclei in the Sun that allows > tunneling through the Coulomb barrier, making nuclear fusion possible > in the first place. I do not deny that. > Of course, that kinetic energy is in part > to particles created, such as photon. That is why they are *gamma* > photons in and near the core. BTW,gamma photons are not produced at reaction 2 1H --> 2He, as it is extremely unstable isotop with negative binding energy, neither at conversion to deuterium. They are produced in 2nd major reaction D + H --> 3He, and by electron positron anihilation. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html > >> Kinetic energy follows here momentum conservation. > > Yes (insofar as one is willing to ascribe coherent meaning to that > incoherent statement). There is a “p” for momentum in What did not you understand in sensence Kinetic energy follows here momentum conservation. ? > > E_kin = √((m c²)² + (p c)²) − m c². > >> KE of moving object will be reflected in higher/lower energy and higher >> or lower momentum of departing photon. > > AISB. No objections. > >>> You really should read the whole posting and the whole discussion before >>> you >> >> I did. You really should expect the worst at others. > > Given your other straw man arguments, the latter is more > likely. > Given your manners....Who taught you them and how long ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 10:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpib3$76f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513315 |
Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:23 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > > You have a misconception as to what “conservation of momentum” means. The > whole thing goes: “In an *isolated* system, total momentum is conserved.” > An isolated system is one where there are no interactions with its > surroundings at all. > > Even if one views the Sun as a isolated system, which it is not, the total > momentum of all of its particles is conserved; not only that of two of them > participating in the interaction that you are wishing for, and which does > not happen in the first place. > E.g. if a photon is absorbed by solid atom matrix, not only the absorbing atom recoils, as the atom is supported by neigboroughod atoms. Yet, still, the matrix gained the momentum from photon, unless it passes momentum elsewhere. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3560789.uvnRJZ9uxI@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514172 |
Poutnik wrote:
> […] if a photon is absorbed by solid atom matrix,
> not only the absorbing atom recoils,
> as the atom is supported by neigboroughod atoms.
Atoms do not emit nor absorb photons.
> Yet, still, the matrix gained the momentum from photon,
> unless it passes momentum elsewhere.
There is not only momentum p in energy E:
E² = (m c²)² + (p c)²
All depends on what happens with the photon’s energy.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 12:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpqa5$69j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514179 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 11:21 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> […] if a photon is absorbed by solid atom matrix, >> not only the absorbing atom recoils, >> as the atom is supported by neigboroughod atoms. > > Atoms do not emit nor absorb photons. Unfortunately, nobody told that to them. :-) Should I run to colleagues to throw to thresh their atomic emission/absorption spectrometres ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_emission_spectroscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy Atoms at base level state do not emit photons. Every atom can absorb photons of suitable energy. BTW, gold colour is one of few easily observable relativistic effects, based on atomic absorption, due shifting orbital energies for heavy atoms. >> Yet, still, the matrix gained the momentum from photon, >> unless it passes momentum elsewhere. > > There is not only momentum p in energy E: > > E² = (m c²)² + (p c)² > > All depends on what happens with the photon’s energy. Energy, linear and angular momentum conservation go along their own independent channels, like 3 conservative variables in 3 equations, as all 3 come from space-time symmetries. No matter what happens with the photon’s energy, linear and angular momentum, all 3 must be conserved, i.e. kept or transferred. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4783671.R8LgY2pGu1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514192 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/08/2015 v 11:21 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >> Poutnik wrote: >>> […] if a photon is absorbed by solid atom matrix, >>> not only the absorbing atom recoils, >>> as the atom is supported by neigboroughod atoms. >> Atoms do not emit nor absorb photons. > > Unfortunately, nobody told that to them. :-) Nobody needs to. Atoms are not a-tomic, different to what the Ancient Greeks thought. > Should I run to colleagues to throw to thresh > their atomic emission/absorption spectrometres ? No, you should stop your silly attempts at misrepresentation. -- PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq7pv$u2p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514287 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:19 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/08/2015 v 11:21 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Poutnik wrote: >>>> […] if a photon is absorbed by solid atom matrix, >>>> not only the absorbing atom recoils, >>>> as the atom is supported by neigboroughod atoms. >>> Atoms do not emit nor absorb photons. >> >> Unfortunately, nobody told that to them. :-) > > Nobody needs to. Atoms are not a-tomic, different to what the Ancient > Greeks thought. You should first understand what atomic means in that instrumentation context. I was graduated in analytical chemistry in 1989. > >> Should I run to colleagues to throw to thresh >> their atomic emission/absorption spectrometres ? > > No, you should stop your silly attempts at misrepresentation. > So, lack of abilities to admit your own mistake. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 19:10 -0700 |
| Subject | light is magneto-electrical |
| Message-ID | <d1b28021-07fd-4e7b-b452-8bad5d718820@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #513312 |
the wave has no particular direction, except for something as artificial as a laser; it is not particulate in any way (not even in terms of the photo-electricalmagnetic effect > Yes it is a vector, but with the simplification of the photon moving > in the x direction, the y and z components are both zero. Therefore, > photon's momentum is p = hf/c in the x direction, and the recoil must be > -hf/c (that is, in the -x direction) to keep the sum zero (and conserve > momentum). > > Are you thinking that in the recoil "f" is somehow the frequency of the > recoiling particle? It's not; it's the frequency of the departing photon. > It has to be mentioned here to balance momentum. The recoiling particle(s) > electrons and/or nuclei, obviously have mass and p=hf/c doesn't apply > to them directly, it's just that they have momentum equal to and opposite > of that of the photon's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqios8$v48$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #513302 |
On 8/13/2015 12:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > But the Sun does not consist only of photons. In fact, it consists of more > stuff that does not manifest itself as a photon than vice-versa. Stuff > whose mass is not zero. Stuff that does not emit those photons in the first > place. I'm sorry, I'm not following. Are you seriously claiming that the only situation where conservation of momentum applies where a photon is radiated away (carrying momentum) is when the recoiling object is ALSO a photon? You don't think that a system that has both objects with nonzero rest mass and zero rest mass exhibits momentum conservation? Or do you think that the zero rest mass objects and nonzero rest mass objects obey momentum conservation separately and independently? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2203251.k4VahC1jhp@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #513319 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/13/2015 12:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> But the Sun does not consist only of photons. In fact, it consists of
>> more stuff that does not manifest itself as a photon than vice-versa.
>> Stuff whose mass is not zero. Stuff that does not emit those photons in
>> the first place.
>
> I'm sorry,
No, you are not.
> I'm not following.
I know.
> Are you seriously claiming that the only situation where conservation of
> momentum applies where a photon is radiated away (carrying momentum) is
> when the recoiling object is ALSO a photon?
No, that is just another straw man argument of yours.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 14:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqipmp$1oq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #513320 |
On 8/13/2015 1:50 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/13/2015 12:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> But the Sun does not consist only of photons. In fact, it consists of >>> more stuff that does not manifest itself as a photon than vice-versa. >>> Stuff whose mass is not zero. Stuff that does not emit those photons in >>> the first place. >> >> I'm sorry, > > No, you are not. > >> I'm not following. > > I know. > >> Are you seriously claiming that the only situation where conservation of >> momentum applies where a photon is radiated away (carrying momentum) is >> when the recoiling object is ALSO a photon? > > No, that is just another straw man argument of yours. OK, so you're not claiming that. It is still true that at atom with non-zero rest mass will recoil from an emitted photon. The way you calculate the momentum is different for the two objects. But this doesn't change the fact that the momenta for the photon and for the atom are numerically equal aside from sign. For the photon, the momentum will be h/lambda. For the atom, it will be beta*gamma*m*c. So in the rest frame of the atom before radiating, conservation of momentum will be 0 = |h/lambda| - |beta*gamma*m*c| > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 00:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <46473310.M57x03HC2v@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #513321 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> It is still true that at atom with non-zero rest mass will recoil from
> an emitted photon.
Atoms do not emit photons. You are arguing based on a fantasy.
> The way you calculate the momentum is different for the two objects.
True.
> But this doesn't change the fact that the momenta for the photon and for
> the atom are numerically equal aside from sign.
It does.
> For the photon, the momentum will be h/lambda.
Yes.
> For the atom, it will be beta*gamma*m*c.
How did you get that idea?
> So [nonsense]
Ex falso quodlibet.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1ecdf2e-3404-49f3-b359-22b299b52800@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #514000 |
The electron fusion points give off these mini-atoms, which then exist in a higher concentration right around where the Galaxy produces them. This is dark matter- a cloud of higher- concentration ether
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 09:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4133811.UAjNYldCiL@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514050 |
john wrote:
> The electron fusion points give off
> these mini-atoms, which then exist
> in a higher concentration right around
> where the Galaxy produces them.
> This is dark matter- a cloud of higher-
> concentration ether
Not even wrong.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 08:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqpu5s$m8k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514050 |
On 8/15/2015 8:53 PM, john wrote: > The electron fusion points give off > these mini-atoms, which then exist > in a higher concentration right around > where the Galaxy produces them. > This is dark matter- a cloud of higher- > concentration ether > Utter trash and garbage -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqplgd$jcf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514000 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 00:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> It is still true that at atom with non-zero rest mass will recoil from >> an emitted photon. > > Atoms do not emit photons. You are arguing based on a fantasy. You mean atoms in their base state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series Sure, it is rather the electron, changing its quantum state, but so does its atom taken as complex quantum object. Atoms and molecules emit photons, if excited. Molecules absorb and emit IR photons all the time, changing their vibration and rotation quantum modes. Even atomic matter like solid argon. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web