On May 15, 2:32 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Tim Golden BandTech.com: > > On May 14, 7:02 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > On May 14, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > > > On May 14, 7:12 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> > > > wrote: > > > ... > > > > > Dave, why don't you go outside and hold a > > > > mirror toward the sun; a big one; full > > > > length six footer, say three feet wide. > > > > You'll be at around 2000 watts and should > > > > be doubling that due to reflection right? > > > > Just think of the power... Jee, Oooh, > > > > Aaaah... > > > > ... "1.21 Jigawatss" ... > > > > > We doubled the power. There is a > > > > falsification. > > > > No. > > > > > Your own 4kw ballistic reflector. You know > > > > how much power that is? That's alot of > > > > stinkin' power! > > > >http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5109/51090979.pdf > > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups> > > > > > > Seriously, you need to get out more. We know what > > > light does, and [you] strain with your little toys in the > > > dirt. You remind me of Aristotle, and how he argued > > > that the nature of motion was for objects to be at rest, > > > unless acted on by some force. Bad bearings are > > > clouding your judgement. > > > Due to conservation of energy if an excellent reflector > > receives 1000 watts of power and it returns that 1000 > > watts to space toward the source then there can be > > no work done. > > Not true. In free fall, I throw a medicine ball to you, and you throw > it equally hard back to me. We are both moving away from each other. > Newton can help you here.
Under this situation where we each throw it 'equally hard' it will return to you at a slower speed, because I have accelerated away from you in catching it. Under repetition of this procedure there will be a diminishing acceleration.
Let's say you throw me the medicine ball at 10 m/s, and that my velocity increases by 1 m/s away from you. For me to return the medicine ball to you at the same velocity (we're getting into some tricky relative reference frames here, but let's just assume that you've remained stationary to keep from getting into too much complication) Then I'll have to send it at 12 m/s (add another 1m/s to my velocity when I release the ball) and that will require expending energy on my part. This is ignoring some important details, but is a reasonable first approximation. If we keep a perfectly elastic reaction on my end the ball will not return to you at the same speed that it left you. No matter what we do conservation of energy applies, and we will need to expend energy in order to maintain the balls velocity relative to you, or even to me, because my own acceleration has taken some of that energy, even in a perfectly elastic situation. You may be envisioning a sort of one way spring, but the one way spring will not provide me with acceleration.
This one way spring effect is somewhat what I am claiming the light behaves as. A perfect reflector is this one way spring; returning all the energy that it received back toward the source, thereby ensuring that no acceleration took place. We could formalize this if you are feeling really persistent, but it should still be possible for you to falsify my statement. Likewise it should be possible for me to falsify yours. I have just done that here.
> > ... > > > I am willing to accept that modern science is > > falsifiable. I believe that this subject is another > > instance. But again, I'm open to being > > wrong. I just wish you could prove it to me. > > I have, over and over. But you ignore it, as you always have done. > You have this obsession, and I cannot help you get past it. Only you > can do that. I've even provided links that you can read... > > David A. Smith
SELENE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE launched in 2007 and the article you reference was written in 1999. Of the numerous articles listed at the bottom of this wiki page I did read one which did not detail any 'radiation pressure' navigation and instead detailed the usage of thrusters on those secondary satellites. Like the article on improved radiometers there is no material evidence but you have enlarged your camp by three, let's say. Really it's alot more than three. But this is not proof, except by socialization. We are not doing political science here.
Are you claiming that a square meter reflective plate can yield 1000 or 2000 watts of power to the holder? I really would appreciate an answer in terms of the accepted energy level, which wiki says is more like 1300 watts per square meter. I do receive this power right? Then I throw it back? And I am then achieving a doubling correct? How can you turn this huge amount of power into the pittance that we can prove it is? We're talking about a few horsepower here. If the ballistic theory were true then we would exist on a drastically different planet. It is an impressive amount of energy and when absorbed by the right materials does much more than heat things up, and it should be the only fusion reactor we ever need. But we are not going to witness the direct conversion to acceleration so easily as some wish. It may one day be possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure states that 1370 W/m/m equates to a radiation pressure of 4.6 micropascals. It seems I have to get into the Stefan Boltzman Law in order to understand this. It is not the electromagnetic energy they are talking about, though their language comes awfully close to this interpretation.
