Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #602093 > unrolled thread

Raindrop Gravity

Started byjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
First post2016-10-22 14:18 -0700
Last post2016-10-29 17:12 -0500
Articles 20 on this page of 75 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 14:18 -0700
    Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 15:12 -0700
    Re: Raindrop Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-23 05:01 +0000
      Re: Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 22:38 -0700
        Re: Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 22:48 -0700
          Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 10:03 +0200
          Re: Raindrop Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-23 18:13 +0000
          Re: Raindrop Gravity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 16:34 -0700
        Re: Raindrop Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-23 18:10 +0000
    Raindrop Gravity HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 01:55 -0700
      Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:05 -0700
        Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 13:10 +0200
          Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 13:20 +0200
            Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-23 06:42 -0700
              Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:47 +0200
                Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-23 06:57 -0700
                  Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 16:09 +0200
                    Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:54 -0700
                      Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 22:05 +0200
                        Re: Raindrop Gravity Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-23 16:00 -0500
                        Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-24 02:42 -0700
                          Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:57 +0200
                            Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 12:02 +0200
                              Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:21 -0700
                                Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 20:57 +0200
                                  Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:24 -0700
                                    Re: Raindrop Gravity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:14 -0700
                                      Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-30 02:46 -0700
                                    Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 19:12 +0100
                                      Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:35 -0700
                                        Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 18:53 +0100
                                          Re: Raindrop Gravity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 12:17 -0700
                                            Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 21:19 +0100
                                            Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 21:26 +0100
                                              gravity isn't noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:25 -0700
                                              Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-01 04:55 -0700
                                                Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:31 +0100
                                                  Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 02:04 -0700
                                          Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-01 02:12 -0700
                                            Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 10:26 +0100
                                          Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-01 02:20 -0700
                                            Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 10:41 +0100
                                              Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-01 04:41 -0700
                                                Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:21 +0100
                                                  Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 03:57 -0700
                                                    Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 16:22 +0100
                                                      Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 02:23 -0700
                                                        Re: Raindrop Gravity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 13:57 -0700
                                                          Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:49 -0700
                                                            Re: Raindrop Gravity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 11:45 -0800
                                                  Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-02 04:13 -0700
                                                    Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 16:26 +0100
                                                      Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 02:30 -0700
                                                Re: Raindrop Gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:58 +0100
                                                  cm = E/c noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 17:48 -0700
                                                  Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 01:47 -0700
                                      Re: Raindrop Gravity poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 02:20 -0700
                                  Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 08:04 -0700
                      Re: Raindrop Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 09:08 -0500
              Re: Raindrop Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 09:07 -0500
        Re: Raindrop Gravity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 16:34 -0700
          Re: Raindrop Gravity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 17:35 -0700
            Re: Raindrop Gravity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-23 19:06 -0700
            Re: Raindrop Gravity HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:30 -0700
        Re: Raindrop Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 09:04 -0500
    Re: Raindrop Gravity Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-10-23 15:10 -0700
      Re: Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:48 -0700
      Re: Raindrop Gravity jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-24 03:02 -0700
    Re: Raindrop Gravity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 06:33 -0700
      Re: Raindrop Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:30 -0500
        Re: Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 08:16 -0700
          Re: Raindrop Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:13 -0500
            Re: Raindrop Gravity john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 14:26 -0700
              Re: Raindrop Gravity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-28 16:37 -0700
              Re: Raindrop Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:12 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#602093 — Raindrop Gravity

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-22 14:18 -0700
SubjectRaindrop Gravity
Message-ID<214774bd-569c-4691-ad4d-ab4c7342f1f9@googlegroups.com>
I've posted on this before.
But, it's good.

If LeSage's " ultra-mundane particles"
are all the same, then obviously going
faster in one direction will increase
Push gravity on the leading side, and
decrease pressure on the trailing
side. Which has a name I'm not
bothering to look up. Like raindrops
hit harder and more numerous on
your windshield, the faster you go.
And, that is not observed.

But, if the push is coming as a kindred
radiation frequency from other
matter travelling variously, then
there will be no such problem.
As you travel faster, you just absorb
selectively lower portions of what
comes towards you- which, it is
interesting to note, would be being
emitted by all matter travelling
the same way-formerly red shifted
compared to you, but now absorbable.
Absorbababble 

And there would be no
Raindrop Argument

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#602099

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-22 15:12 -0700
Message-ID<7ae8bca6-6c28-4b43-b07c-9ab07641a501@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602093
This construction would mean that 
matter would 'draft' other matter,
seemingly pulling it along.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602136

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-10-23 05:01 +0000
Message-ID<nuhg6o$qa$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#602093
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

<snip crap>

>Absorbababble 

No, just babble.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602138

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-22 22:38 -0700
Message-ID<18c7a2ec-0de8-4fd3-94a0-a19e74ff8034@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602136
Michael
Why? 
Cannot radiation be selectively absorbed,
according to its wavelength?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602139

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-22 22:48 -0700
Message-ID<2a73ac92-cc66-40a6-ad24-f20ae504cac6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602138
Michael 
"just babble. "
Haha.
Knew you couldn't resist.

Radiation can transfer momentum 
when absorbed, right? But not
when reflected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602148

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 10:03 +0200
Message-ID<nuhqsi$tg0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#602139
Dne 23/10/2016 v 07:48 john napsal(a):
> Michael 
> "just babble. "
> Haha.
> Knew you couldn't resist.
> 
> Radiation can transfer momentum 
> when absorbed, right? But not
> when reflected.
> 
You say by other words that
the law of momentum conservation is not valid.

As the reflected light
has the opposite momentum than incoming light.
So the rate of momentum transfer
is for total reflection doubled,
compared to total absorption.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602179

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-10-23 18:13 +0000
Message-ID<nuiukg$lad$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#602139
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael 
>"just babble. "
>Haha.
>Knew you couldn't resist.

So if you know it's just babble, why do you continue to babble here?

>Radiation can transfer momentum 
>when absorbed, right? But not
>when reflected.

It actually transfer almost twice as much momentum when reflected, but I 
don't see how that relates to babbling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602236

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 16:34 -0700
Message-ID<91e0b413-564d-4e85-bd22-e893c1ab6f23@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602139
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Michael 
> "just babble. "
> Haha.
> Knew you couldn't resist.
> 
> Radiation can transfer momentum 
> when absorbed, right? But not
> when reflected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602178

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-10-23 18:10 +0000
Message-ID<nuiuf8$lad$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#602138
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Why? 

Yes, why LeSage type gravitation, when it has been known to be a failed
theory for something like two centuries.

>Cannot radiation be selectively absorbed,
>according to its wavelength?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602149

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 01:55 -0700
Message-ID<56a6f6c5-c507-477f-9343-b471ef6c7c50@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602093
John what in the blue fuck are you on about now?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602155

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 04:05 -0700
Message-ID<7b4b098c-c371-41c9-b536-7238a43d0e1b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602149
Does light/radiation transfer momentum?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602157

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 13:10 +0200
Message-ID<nui5r5$67m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#602155
Dne 23/10/2016 v 13:05 john napsal(a):
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
> 

It does, both linear and angular one.

A photon has the linear momentum h.f/c
and angular momentum h .sqrt(2)
with the axis projection one of h . [-1|0|+1]

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602158

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 13:20 +0200
Message-ID<nui6d2$80e$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#602157
Dne 23/10/2016 v 13:10 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 13:05 john napsal(a):
>> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>>
> 
> It does, both linear and angular one.
> 
> A photon has the linear momentum h.f/c
> and angular momentum h .sqrt(2)
> with the axis projection one of h . [-1|0|+1]
> 
And, while photons have spin angular momentum,
the specially generated light beam
can have also orbital angular momentum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602163

Fromjay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 06:42 -0700
Message-ID<4f44bd54-ebf3-461f-9758-d5f52f59f5c5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602158
Poutnik
>And, while photons have spin angular momentum, 
>the specially generated light beam 
>can have also orbital angular momentum. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light 

If you study spin, orbital angular momentum etc. It is only polarisation that dictates 
these different terms. Nothing to do with momentum. That is a made up
classification. 
If you couldn't measure the polarisation of a light beam, could you 
distinguish between spin and orbital states of light?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602164

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 15:47 +0200
Message-ID<nuif18$7ea$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#602163
Dne 23/10/2016 v 15:42 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik
>> And, while photons have spin angular momentum, 
>> the specially generated light beam 
>> can have also orbital angular momentum. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light 
> 
> If you study spin, orbital angular momentum etc. It is only polarisation that dictates 
> these different terms. Nothing to do with momentum. That is a made up
> classification. 

> If you couldn't measure the polarisation of a light beam, could you 
> distinguish between spin and orbital states of light? 
> 

As spin means spin angular momentum
and Light polarization means patterns
in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....

Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602165

Fromjay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 06:57 -0700
Message-ID<deb4d3f3-2816-4090-8bd2-f98115f285d8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602164
Poutnik
>As spin means spin angular momentum 
>and Light polarization means patterns 
>in orientation of photon spin angular momentum..... 

>Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum. 

All you refer to as light angular momentum and spin angular momentum
is only different states of polarisation of beam. Nothing to do with
momentum or lack of momentum in light beam.

Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) 
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602166

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 16:09 +0200
Message-ID<2bfae609-b373-cc78-05b5-48e8a64214f7@gmail.com>
In reply to#602165
Dne 23/10/2016 v 15:57 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik
>> As spin means spin angular momentum 
>> and Light polarization means patterns 
>> in orientation of photon spin angular momentum..... 
> 
>> Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum. 
> 
> All you refer to as light angular momentum and spin angular momentum
> is only different states of polarisation of beam. Nothing to do with
> momentum or lack of momentum in light beam.

I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum.

If the light beam is constructed by a special way,
that the light propagates effectively in spirale
 ( and therefore its vacuum group speed
is slower than vacuum plane wave phase speed ),

than the light beam has orbital angular momentum,
as the sine of angle of momentum and radius is nonzero.

> 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. 
> 


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602167

Fromjay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 07:54 -0700
Message-ID<d7c76f6f-3e46-4920-9ff9-3c71e308e8b5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#602166
Poutnik

>I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum. 

Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.
But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
Polarisation changes over time in circular polarised light. 
And it also changes in what you call light
with orbital angular momentum. The only difference I can see
between circular polarised light and that called orbital, is that
In circular polarised light the entire beam changes angle of 
polarisation in unison. Whereas in orbital different parts of
a beam cross section are at different linear polarisation but
they are still just changing polarisation over time.

Think of it this way.  Five clocks in a line with rotating clock 
hour hands. 
Circular polarised light is the five clock hands rotating in sync. 
So all are pointing in the same hour at any one time.
Orbital is just the five clock hands rotating but all pointing to
different hours at any one time.
Both examples are imparting energy or what you call 
momentum. But the only way to distinguish between the two
examples is the state and rate of observed polarizations

>If the light beam is constructed by a special way, 
>that the light propagates effectively in 
> ( and therefore its vacuum group speed 
>is slower than vacuum plane wave phase speed ), 

>than the light beam has orbital angular momentum, 
>as the sine of angle of momentum and radius is nonzero




-- 
- show quoted text -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602201

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 22:05 +0200
Message-ID<nuj54m$qut$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#602167
Dne 23/10/2016 v 16:54 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik
> 
>> I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum. 
> 
> Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.

Energy cannot be classified as momentum.
Energy of light is just proportional to momentum as E = p.c

> But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
> due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...

"The orbital angular momentum of light (OAM) is the component of angular
momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
distribution, and not on the polarization"

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602210

FromSerigo <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-10-23 16:00 -0500
Message-ID<nuj8ce$1lnq$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#602201
On 10/23/2016 3:05 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 16:54 jay moseley napsal(a):
>> Poutnik
>>


>
> "The orbital angular momentum of light (OAM) is the component of angular
> momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
> distribution, and not on the polarization"
>

that part I do not understand, the OAM,

and isnt field spatial distribution not polarization anyway ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web