Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #519359 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-14 09:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-06 20:21 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-06 21:47 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-06 17:36 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-07 01:56 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-07 05:44 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-07 15:16 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:04 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 16:59 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:41 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 18:24 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 17:43 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:47 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-08 19:26 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-10 01:58 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:16 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 19:42 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 06:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:08 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 06:31 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio "Phony McNymster" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-11 07:42 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 07:59 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 07:16 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:41 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:49 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-11 18:18 +0000
Re: Relativistic Radio noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:24 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 11:20 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 06:21 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:04 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:59 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 03:44 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:33 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:49 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 01:07 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:40 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 03:40 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 13:19 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 04:55 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:01 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 16:36 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:18 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:29 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 02:41 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:11 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:40 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:59 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:47 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 10:10 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:57 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 11:14 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 20:23 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 20:31 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 12:21 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:30 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 00:57 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 14:50 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:57 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:37 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 03:06 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-15 06:43 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:11 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:26 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:15 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 17:38 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:00 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:22 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 12:29 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 01:16 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 23:09 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:44 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-12 23:50 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-13 05:24 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:35 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 01:01 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:39 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:34 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-14 12:31 -0700
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:53 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:22 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:08 +0200
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Relativistic Radio Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:31 -0500
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40a68d95-a0a8-4ed2-b7a7-173cb22abf9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521314 |
Poutnik.. >> If you think it does....Then show me the link to a reliable >> reference that shows how a classical wave model carries mass or momentum. >They do not carry mass, but momentum. It is your homework, as it is in textbooks of classical wave electrodynamics. You supply no link, no reference no citation, no precedence. Dont expect me to take the blame for your lack of evidence. Nowhere in any available reference is there a a description that waves carry momentum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 20:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9nkb$smk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521326 |
Dne 15/09/2015 v 20:14 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Poutnik.. > >>> If you think it does....Then show me the link to a reliable >> >>> reference that shows how a classical wave model carries mass or >>> momentum. > >> They do not carry mass, but momentum. It is your homework, as it is >> in textbooks of classical wave electrodynamics. > > You supply no link, no reference no citation, no precedence. Dont > expect me to take the blame for your lack of evidence. Nowhere in any > available reference is there a a description that waves carry > momentum. Nowhere is any ? You are just too lazy to ever bother to search for them. https://www.google.com/search?q=electromagnetic+wave+carrying+momentum Why should I substitute your own effort to learn the basics you should know for ages, if you try to break both QM and SR ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 20:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9o2h$uch$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521328 |
Dne 15/09/2015 v 20:23 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 15/09/2015 v 20:14 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): >> >> You supply no link, no reference no citation, no precedence. Dont >> expect me to take the blame for your lack of evidence. Nowhere in any >> available reference is there a a description that waves carry >> momentum. > > Nowhere is any ? > You are just too lazy to ever bother to search for them. > > https://www.google.com/search?q=electromagnetic+wave+carrying+momentum > > Why should I substitute your own effort to learn the basics > you should know for ages, if you try to break both QM and SR ? > One of the many that "do not exist" http://www.physicspages.com/2014/08/24/electromagnetic-waves-energy-momentum-and-light-pressure/ -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <909e1e5e-006c-43af-b44b-2ba0225b4ce8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521330 |
Poutnik.. > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=electromagnetic+wave+carrying+momentum > > > One of the many that "do not exist" I think you and Odd are confusing the emr' oscillating magnetic field and the pressure it exerts,... for additional momentum from any relative motion of the source to detector. Even Feynman admits that the oscillating magnetic field in emr exerts pressure on the detector. But that oscillating magnetic field is part of the emission process and is present even when the source and detector do not move relative to each other. But at no point in any of those pages that you and Odd cite, and a few others that I read from your suggested google search link,..do any of them suggest that the oscillating magnetic field in any detected emr transfers *additional* energy from the relative movement of the source. You and odd dream this only. Nor do ANY of those links cite ANY experimental evidence that explicitly show that the *total* amount of energy emitted increases when the source moves towards the detector. Certainly not your laser cooling experiment. Nowhere in that experiment is there any attempt to quantify whether or not each atom gets more energy than emitted by the laser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mt9o4p$pf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #521326 |
On 9/15/2015 1:14 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > You supply no link, no reference no citation, no precedence. Dont expect > me to take the blame for your lack of evidence. Nowhere in any available > reference is there a a description that waves carry momentum. Google Poynting vector. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d712e771-6b54-4b12-9daa-6eba5d96856a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #520953 |
Poutnik wrote... > > But in waves when you shorten a wave to half its length you preserve its energy. > You DO NOT increase a waves energy when you blueshift it to half its length. > (You only increase the energy *per second*) > The observed conversion tables support this conclusion. If the photon > model were correct then the well accepted observation that one second > of 100 nm emr is double the energy of 1 second of 200 nm emr....is false!! >Intensities are ignored here. How so? The truth is that intensities are being ignored by the photon model. There is no mechanism in waves to get additional energy from momentum. There is no mechanism in any study of wave propogation to get additional energy from the vacuum medium during propogation. And thats why the tables show that a wavelength of a certain intensity will maintain its 'intensity', ie total energy when blueshifted. So that one wavelength 100 nm of x energy will become one wavelength 50 nm of the same x energy I believe thats called conservation of energy. Your photon model breaks this law by incorrectly assuming that light emitted gains energy from nowhere, somewhere between emission and detection. Something for nothing. And this isnt observed. Otherwise the ev to nm conversion tables would not be correct. Under the photon model one second of one wavelength emr could equal *any* amount of ev, not just one amount as observed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt6fmm$kkb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520963 |
On 09/14/2015 09:57 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik wrote... >>> But in waves when you shorten a wave to half its length you preserve its energy. > You DO NOT increase a waves energy when you blueshift it to half its length. > (You only increase the energy *per second*) > The observed conversion tables support this conclusion. If the photon > model were correct then the well accepted observation that one second > of 100 nm emr is double the energy of 1 second of 200 nm emr....is false!! > >> Intensities are ignored here. > > How so? > The truth is that intensities are being ignored by the photon model. How so ? Intensity in W/steradian is equal to number of photons per second and steradian, multiplied by the photon energy. If a source is a blackbody radiator with T=1000 K, thanin moves toward thebdectector by v = 0.6c, it is equivalent to observed static BBsource wit T=2000K. Not only by the spectrum, but also by intensities. BTW, there is no standalone photon model. There is either classical relativistic electrodynamics, wave based, either quantum SR aware electrodynamics, QED. > > There is no mechanism in waves to get additional energy from momentum. > There is no mechanism in any study of wave propogation to get additional > energy from the vacuum medium during propogation. ..... they do not get energy from momentum, but from the energy of the source. And the moving source provide more energy than stationary one. And yes, the amount of this energy is generally different in each frame. > ..... And thats why the > tables show that a wavelength of a certain intensity will maintain its > 'intensity', ie total energy when blueshifted. So that one wavelength 100 nm > of x energy will become one wavelength 50 nm of the same x energy I believe thats > called conservation of energy. You ignore the source provides different amount of energy in each frame. > Your photon model breaks this law by > incorrectly assuming that light emitted gains energy from nowhere, somewhere > between emission and detection. Something for nothing. It is not my model. It is your wrong analysis that breaks the laws. There is higher energy output, as there is higher energy input, so energy is conserved in each frame. > And this isnt observed. Of course this is not observed, as wrong predictions based on wrong conclusions are seldom observed. > Under the photon model one second of one wavelength emr could equal > *any* amount of ev, not just one amount as observed. > Again, wrong conclusion based on wrong analysis. you again completely ignore the intensity and the total energy, focusing just on wavelength and duration. Just for the illustration, thermally emitting source with T=500 K, moving 0.6c is for the detector equivalent to static source of T=1000 K. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba258d97-d2dc-4954-9492-11098df1be04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521005 |
Poutnik... > Again, wrong conclusion based on wrong analysis. you again completely ignore the intensity and the total energy, focusing just on wavelength and duration. >just for the illustration, thermally emitting source with T=500 K, moving 0.6c is for the detector equivalent to static 1000k But thats increase is measuring per time unit isnt it? Instead, lets say your source emitted just 1nanosecond of radiation and your detector measured the total 1ns energy while it or the source moved at 0.6 c Would it still be double energy received?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 08:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt8e8c$uif$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521121 |
Dne 14/09/2015 v 21:57 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Poutnik... >> Again, wrong conclusion based on wrong analysis. you again completely ignore the intensity and the total energy, focusing just on wavelength and duration. > >> just for the illustration, thermally emitting source with T=500 K, moving 0.6c is for the detector equivalent to static 1000k > > But thats increase is measuring per time unit isnt it? That increase is Watts per steradian. > Instead, lets say your source emitted just 1nanosecond of radiation For v = 0.6 c is gamma = 1.2, so if still source emits 1 ns, than moving source emits 1.2 ns. > and your detector measured the total 1ns energy while it > or the source moved at 0.6 c > Would it still be double energy received? this depends on quality and geometry of the source. If, and only if the number of photons is the same, than yes, double energy is received. But it is easy to have scenario, where it is not, if the source has wide radiation angle, e.g. thermal sources. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 03:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcac8562-3396-4da7-9aea-1222d44647ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521231 |
Poutnik wrote... >>>> Again, wrong conclusion based on wrong analysis. you again completely ignore the intensity and the total energy, focusing just on wavelength and duration. >>>just for the illustration, thermally emitting source with T=500 K, moving 0.6c is for the detector equivalent to static 1000k >>But thats increase is measuring per time unit isnt it? Instead, lets say your source emitted just 1nanosecond of radiation and your detector measured the > >>total 1ns energy while it or the source moved at 0.6 c Would it still be double energy received? >The increase is in watts per steridian In other words time units. Seeing as steridian are units of area and watts joules per second. Like Odd, you do this to avoid answering a question that may prove you are incorrect. So I ask again until you answer. If your emitter only emitted radiation for one time unit and that blue shifted radiation was therefore observed for a shorter period because its waves are bunched up.( you move towards source) Would you still receive double the energy? The answer is .. no. Whether or not its the same as emitted is still open for debate. So far you have supplied no experimental evidence to prove it isnt the same. And before I can respond to your blackbody emitter example... You have emitted radiation at 500k but perceived as 1000k if detector moves towards source at 0.6 c Can you show me those full calculations? Im not sure how you get a doubling of energy when your detector speed is only 0.6c relative to the emitter. Are you including relativistic effects in your calculations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt8u6o$ik0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521242 |
On 09/15/2015 12:06 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik wrote... >>>>> Again, wrong conclusion based on wrong analysis. you again completely ignore the intensity and the total energy, focusing just on wavelength and duration. > >>>> just for the illustration, thermally emitting source with T=500 K, moving 0.6c is for the detector equivalent to static 1000k > >>> But thats increase is measuring per time unit isnt it? Instead, lets say your source emitted just 1nanosecond of radiation and your detector measured the > >>total 1ns energy while it or the source moved at 0.6 c Would it still be double energy received? > >> The increase is in watts per steridian > > In other words time units. Seeing as steridian are units of area and watts joules per second. steradian definitely is not unit of area, but of solid angle. > > Like Odd, you do this to avoid answering a question that may prove you are incorrect. > So I ask again until you answer. If your emitter only emitted radiation for one time unit > and that blue shifted radiation was therefore observed for a shorter period because > its waves are bunched up.( you move towards source) Would you still receive double the > energy? > The answer is .. no. The answer is yes, if photon count is the same, e.g. catching all the light from a laser. The answer is no, if the source is wide angle one, as there is directional redistribution of the intensity, aside of frequencies. > Whether or not its the same as emitted is still open for debate. So far you have supplied > no experimental evidence to prove it isnt the same. Rather you try to avoid to see the answers Odd and I provide you forsome time already. The answer is simple. In frame A, emitter ( light source or ball ejector ) emits energy E_A detector ( radiometer or ball catcher ) absorbes energy E_A. In frame B, emitter emits energy E_B detector absorbes energy E_B. So receiver does not receive more energy than is emitted. And generally, E_A <> E_B > > And before I can respond to your blackbody emitter example... You have emitted > radiation at 500k but perceived as 1000k if detector moves towards source at 0.6 c > Can you show me those full calculations? Im not sure how you get > a doubling of energy when your detector speed is only 0.6c relative to the > emitter. Are you including relativistic effects in your calculations? > I would have burns of 4th grade if I emitted at 500 K (smiling). Can you show me full calculations describing energy conservation violation by SR and/or quantum EMR model ? No, I cannot, I am not en expert in relativistic electrodynamics. If you want to see more, you have to bother reading additional resources, e.g. referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Doppler_effect_on_intensity http://www.pnas.org/content/79/4/1340.abstract -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 13:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt8ug8$kas$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521244 |
On 09/15/2015 01:10 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> > Like Odd, you do this to avoid answering a question that may prove you are incorrect. >> > So I ask again until you answer. If your emitter only emitted radiation for one time unit >> > and that blue shifted radiation was therefore observed for a shorter period because >> > its waves are bunched up.( you move towards source) Would you still receive double the >> > energy? >> > The answer is .. no. > The answer is yes, if photon count is the same, > e.g. catching all the light from a laser. More exactly, it depends on a frame where you evaluate it. My above claim is for the frame with the detector in rest and moving source. For the frame with the moving detector and source in rest, detector receives the same energy as for fully static case. The additional energy, causing higher light impact same as in the other frame, is transformed from energy of the moving detector. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <029bf192-0cba-4cb6-b60f-b9286d3c2bf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #521244 |
Poutnik wrote... >> > Can you show me those full calculations? Im not sure how you get > a doubling of energy when your detector speed is only 0.6c relative to the > emitter. >>Are you including relativistic effects in your calculations? > I would have burns of 4th grade if I emitted at 500 K (smiling). >Can you show me full calculations describing energy conservation violation by SR and/or quantum EMR model ? I dont need to do the calculations. They are already there in the ev to nm conversion tables. Look the tables up on wiki electromagnetic spectrum page. A wave model predicts that 1 sec of 200 nm radiation when blueshifted Will become equal in energy to 1/2 a second of 100nm emr. In your blackbody emitter case That should work out to 800k for a 500k emitter at 0.6 c. Not 1000k as you say. Your photon model is not consistent with a wave model. Thats a problem for wave particle duality if the wave part of the duality gives dkfferent energies than the particle bit. >No, I cannot, I am not en expert in relativistic electrodynamics. If you want to see more, you have to bother reading additional resources, e.g. referenced >here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Doppler_effect. If, as you say you cant do the calculations, then how did you know that 500k at 0.6 c becomes 1000k? Did you read that somewhere? Is there a link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 16:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt98rh$sq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521262 |
On 09/15/2015 03:43 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik wrote... >>>> Can you show me those full calculations? Im not sure how you get > a doubling of energy when your detector speed is only 0.6c relative to the > emitter. >>Are you including relativistic effects in your calculations? >> I would have burns of 4th grade if I emitted at 500 K (smiling). > >> Can you show me full calculations describing energy conservation violation by SR and/or quantum EMR model ? > > I dont need to do the calculations. They are already there in the ev to nm conversion tables. Yes,you do need them, as you oversimplify things > Look the tables up on wiki electromagnetic spectrum page. > A wave model predicts that 1 sec of 200 nm radiation when blueshifted > Will become equal in energy to 1/2 a second of 100nm emr. Yes, but IF AND ONLY IF there is the same incoming photon rate in both cases. What is NOT our case, as the count is the same, as the incoming photon rate is inversely proportional to ratethe case > In your blackbody emitter case That should work out to 800k > for a 500k emitter at 0.6 c. Not 1000k as you say. Try again and read carefully about relativistic Doppler effect. > Your photon model is not consistent with a wave model. The first, the model is not mine. the second, it is consistent, but not in bogus interpretations. > Thats a problem for wave particle duality if the wave part of > the duality gives dkfferent energies than the particle bit. Yes, it is a problem. You should check your calculations, as there is an error. > >> No, I cannot, I am not en expert in relativistic electrodynamics. If you want to see more, you have to bother reading additional resources, e.g. referenced >here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Doppler_effect. > > If, as you say you cant do the calculations, then how did you know that 500k at 0.6 c becomes 1000k? > Did you read that somewhere? Is there a link. You do have it already 3 lines above, if you bothered to read it and make simple calculation. Relativistic Doppler effect causes halving of wavelength for v=0.6c, and there is provided Lorentz invariant Intensity divided by cubed frequency, and that effective temperature shift by the same coeficient as the Doppler frequency shift. BTW, how could I know there is America when I was not there nor have seen it ? America probably does not exist. :-) -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 18:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9gog$ukv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521269 |
On 09/15/2015 04:11 PM, Poutnik wrote: > On 09/15/2015 03:43 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > >> Look the tables up on wiki electromagnetic spectrum page. >> A wave model predicts that 1 sec of 200 nm radiation when blueshifted >> Will become equal in energy to 1/2 a second of 100nm emr. > > Yes, but IF AND ONLY IF there is the same incoming photon rate > in both cases. What is NOT our case, as the count is the same, > as the incoming photon rate is inversely proportional to ratethe case > sorry, typo, should be ( + few tweaking): What is NOT our case, as the photon count is the same, and the incoming photon rate is inversely proportional to receiving interval. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 18:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9h8g$18q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521295 |
On 09/15/2015 06:26 PM, Poutnik wrote: > On 09/15/2015 04:11 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> On 09/15/2015 03:43 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>> Look the tables up on wiki electromagnetic spectrum page. >>> A wave model predicts that 1 sec of 200 nm radiation when blueshifted >>> Will become equal in energy to 1/2 a second of 100nm emr. >> >> Yes, but IF AND ONLY IF there is the same incoming photon rate >> in both cases. What is NOT our case, as the count is the same, >> as the incoming photon rate is inversely proportional to ratethe case >> > > sorry, typo, should be ( + few tweaking): > > What is NOT our case, as the photon count is the same, > and the incoming photon rate > is inversely proportional to receiving interval. > Analogically , let our ball ejector ejects 100 g balls at speed v = 20 m/s, with energy 0.5 . 0.1 . 400 = 20 J with cadency 10 balls / s. If target moves by speed 20 m/s toward the ejector, and if we evaluate the frame where the target is in rest, then the target is hit by the balls of energy 80 J ( speed 40 m/s ) with cadency 20 balls/s, so in total 8 times higher receiving energy rate. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 16:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9apj$593$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #521262 |
On 09/15/2015 03:43 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > In your blackbody emitter case That should work out to 800k > for a 500k emitter at 0.6 c. Not 1000k as you say. Relativistic Doppler formula for approaching source : f_observed = sqrt[ (1 + v/c) / (1 - v/c) ] * f_stationary for v=0.6c : f_observed = sqrt[ (1 + 0.6) / (1 - 0.6) ] * f_stationary f_observed = sqrt[ (1.6) / (0.4) ] * f_stationary f_observed = sqrt[ (8/5) / (2/5) ] * f_stationary f_observed = sqrt[ 8 / 2 ] * f_stationary f_observed = 2 * f_stationary therefore wavelength_observed = 1/2 * wavelength_stationary So 1000 K as I have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 08:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt5oi7$52s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520638 |
Dne 13/09/2015 v 12:44 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote. >>>> I dont think so. I specified that in one frame the absorbtion rate was double >>>> because the emr had been blueshifted to half its wavelength. But,.. because it >>>> was only visible for half the amount of time the total energy absorbed by the > moving detector is the same as when it wasnt moving relative to the >>>source. > >> You omitted the fact the emission interval does not equal to absorption interval. > >> So not only 1 photon contains more energy, but photon incoming rate is higher , with shorter interval, so total count of photons is the same, but total >photon energy is double. > > In the photon model those 10 emitted photons when observed by the detector (as > the source moves towards the detector) have their energy increased. > Therefore, in the photon model the total energy detected will increase from > total energy emitted if the source moves towards the detector. > I believe thats what you are saying. > > But in waves when you shorten a wave to half its length you preserve its energy. > You DO NOT increase a waves energy when you blueshift it to half its length. > (You only increase the energy *per second*) > The observed conversion tables support this conclusion. If the photon > model were correct then the well accepted observation that one second > of 100 nm emr is double the energy of 1 second of 200 nm emr....is false!! > Obviously the photon model is contradicted by observation and the nm to ev > conversions which state NO energy is added when blueshifted. > > Dont forget, in the gedanken 10 seconds of emitted radiation, when blueshifted > to half its length...only lasts for 5 seconds. > Special relativity, both classical and combined with quantum mechanics, is analyzed very well and found consistent. So if you think there is something wrong there, you have to properly and quantitatively analyze cases with SR aware approach to show it. But it is highly recommended to analyze first your knowledge and approach, if the error cannot be found there, as this is what most of great physicists do at the first place in such cases. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 08:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt5q84$9rt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520958 |
Dne 14/09/2015 v 08:15 Poutnik napsal(a): >> > Special relativity, both classical > and combined with quantum mechanics, > is analyzed very well and found consistent. > > So if you think there is something wrong there, > you have to properly and quantitatively analyze cases > with SR aware approach to show it. > As a start, half wavelength belongs to the source speed 0.6c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect with gamma 1.2. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 17:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msusen$m3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #520294 |
On 09/11/2015 04:16 PM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Poutnik wrote... >> Energy is generally never conserved between frames, but within a frame. > >> in frame A the energy EA is provided to produce a photon of energy EA. In frame B the energy EB is provided to produce a photon of energy EB. > >> energy conservation law is valid within a frame, not between frames. > > Nonetheless as I have described in my last post, the source that emits the radiation > does not need to lose or gain energy, regardless of the observors motion relative to > the source. Calculating this where light is treated as a wave proves my point. The source in every frame gains the same power as it spends by the emission, even if this power is different in different frames. > > In fact, contrary to your claim of conservation within frames, I would say that your > arguments mean no conservation of energy in the source frame. Because other frames, > like the observor frame, take it away. > Therefore energy is conserved in every frame. There is no energy exchange between frames, as frames are human constructs, helping us to observe, describe and evaluate reality. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web