Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 19, 5:13 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:> And finally I've found some support from a third party: >>> http://www.neumann-alpha.org/lightpressure.pdf >>> So far little of the information that I've read has bothered to enter >>> any theory of the radiation pressure, but here we see an >>> investigation. >>> - Tim >> Hi Tim >> interesting paper and I had an idea. >> If there is a dependence on the degree of vacuum in the radiometer, than >> we could think about this: >> sound is a longitudinal wave and the speed of sound is faster in denser >> materials. In lighter materials it is less and zero in vacuum. >> For light we have the opposite relation. Light is a traverse wave and >> faster in vacuum and slower in denser material. >> Now, this seems to be an inverse relation and waves behave longitudinal >> in denser material and traverse in vacuum. This density we could treat >> in the same manner and build a function of an inverse relation. >> The longitudinal aspect would transfer momentum, while the traverse >> would not. >> Than we could treat sound waves in the same manner as light, but within >> different media. (This is like the kink surface, that looks like a >> circle from the front and like a sinus wave from the side.) >> >> Than we do the same with frequency and assign zero Hz to the slowest >> possible wave. That is dense material just sitting there. Now we perform >> a Lorentz transform from timelike to lightlike and get high frequency >> and traverse waves and could have all combinations in between. The >> 'angle' is mainly a function of the density of the medium. In a >> compressible medium with maximum speed of c, the transversal waves have >> always speed of c and could come together with longitudinal waves (that >> have the speed of sound) and we would see both effects at different >> times and think about different reasons. >> >> Greetings >> >> Thomas > > This is good reasoning Thomas. I think we can take a more concise path > by drawing the analogy directly, but it is entirely due to your own > suggestion of the acoustic wave. We can accept acoustic pressure as > providing work, even in a gas, but we would never try to claim to > derive a trajectory type of acceleration from such an oscillating > source, unless we provided a clean mechanism to do so. > > If we accept that light is an oscillation, then the 'radiometric > pressure' has simply been misunderstood to be taken as a DC sort of > pressure whereas it is actually an AC pressure, and any acceleration > that might be provided is strictly oscillating, until some mechanism > of rectification can be achieved to yield a trajectory type of > acceleration. > > I am amazed at the quantity of coherent interpretations that can be > fabricated on this subject, all because of the intangible nature of > the problem. But the claim of doubling of a trajectory due to > reflection is so poor that I can't believe it hasn't been exposed > already. Did anyone stop to consider conservation of energy? Maybe I > am overlooking something within the argument. I still haven't found > the original claim of either Maxwell or Bartoli that leads everyone > on. How we go from the high power (1kW/m/m)argument to the low power > argument (4.6uPa) is what I still don't see. According to something I > was just reading Bartoli did not even buy into his own argument later > on after first consideration. Also there is a reliance on > thermodynamics there. > > If falsifiable, then the argument on radiometric pressure rubs up > against mass/energy equivalence of Einstein. > > In the past I've declared a farce on heat as vibrating atoms. Here is > an issue near to it and above I've made an argument to look at light > as vibrations. We're in the middle of something potentially larger I > think. You've tied right into it with the light/sound thought and I'll > reflect back to you the mechanical interpretations of both heat and > sound: > sound: vibrating atoms > heat: vibrating atoms > With no distinction there is not any distinction. As heat conducts > through material extremely slowly, we have something of a three tiered > system in terms of rates of propagation: > heat: sloooooooowwwww > sound: fairly snappy > light: extremely quick > That heat energy somehow wraps around to emit as infrared light energy > is surely a disproof of heat as atoms in translatory vibration, which > is exactly what sound is. > > I recommend heading for geometry on this, and perhaps even the usage > of higher dimensions. Heat conduction has to have a looser coupling > than sound. It simply does not propagate well through solid matter. > Sorry to sidetrack off the radiometric thing, but this is probably > related. By bouncing this off to you something decent could come out.
Hi Tim interesting thread, isn't it? But now it gets difficult to find the point where to continue. As I see it heat and sound both describe oscillatory effects at the atomic scale. Since in my model, there is rotation a factor, that creates these structures, they can have what we call on planetary level precession. In the spacetime picture it is a disturbance sideways. Sound is a wave in a direction, that is called timelike, because it is related to mass. The disturbance 'sideways' is acting over em-forces, that connect the atoms. Imagine gyroscopes, that are connected with springs, than the misalignments of the gyroscopes on average represents heat. Since their spin stabilizes them, they don't 'want' to be disturbed and resist that kind of influence. Only where you have stronger bonds of the em-type, you get good conductivity for heat. Since that is, what connects the atoms, those substance are also strongly connected as usually metals are.
The rotation 'sideways' I call 'radiation term'. It does not radiate by itself, only if disturbed, what is one effect of heat. So things start to glow with very low frequency if heated up. That is the same effect gravity has, because it forces those 'gyroscopes' on curved lines, what make them radiate.
