swansont

! Moderator Note Photon question has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119471-light-energy-split-from-can-you-move-in-space/?tab=comments#comment-1108755

! Moderator Note You already have posted this in another thread

I never said your equation had been verified. I said that the double slit/multi-slit experiment has been done countless times. It’s a standard university physics lab. The whole point of doing such labs is demonstration of known physics. WTF does gravity have to do with this? Having a model means maths, and is an absolute requirement for making specific and hopefully falsifiable predictions, which is a requirement for physics. Those quotes tend to come from philosophers. Last I checked, love was not addressed by physics.

Like I said: science site.

Citation needed Ah. You understand that this is a science discussion site, right?

That’s your job, not mine. I don’t see an equation that can be tested, anyway. I’m saying the existing theory works. It matches experiment. Either your model gives the same result or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. In any event, you bear the burden of showing how your model is consistent with what we know. Consider the following thought experiment. You start with 2 slits, and start adding slits, all with identical spacing, but all located within the laser spot. The interference fringes will be sharper as you add the extra slits, but will not change in their location. But each added slit represents more transmitted photons and fewer absorbed photons. How does that compare with your model.

Photons are particles of light (electromagnetic radiation) and energy is one of their properties. Yes, the light and gravity from the sun would still exist for a little over 8 minutes, but the sun disappearing is not something that could actually happen.

The experiment you describe is actually very hard, since it would not be easy to make a photodetector array that would fit (the slits and structure are really small), but you could do a proxy of it by comparing the transmitted energy with and without the apparatus, and do this for different size slits and slit spacing. But we already know what the answer is, because people have done this experiment with the different conditions, and everybody agrees that the equation is correct. The location of the interference peaks depends on the slit spacing and the wavelength. The diffraction envelope depends on the slit size. And that's all.

No, because catching it involves momentum transfer as well. You can only generate propulsion if mass actually leaves the system.

It's obvious that this is the case. But it's physics, and terms have specific meanings. The reason why you can't just say "use energy instead" is that it matters how you implement your idea. I could levitate something with a laser, but the power requirement would be huge, because photons don't have much momentum. If I did so it's still wrong to say that one is "substituting a continuous supply of energy for material strength" because those concepts and properties are not interchangeable.

It would. But all you are doing is rearranging the mass distribution, but the center of mass will not have changed. By motion I (and I assume others) meant that you will not have a sustained velocity of the center of mass.

I missed that we were talking about plastic earlier. I was thinking metal in my post.

If the rocks stuck to the board, there would be no overall motion. If the rocks bounced off, there would be.

You're right, it isn't.

! Moderator Note Advertising is not permitted here

Converting kinetic energy of the particles is not the description one would use in physics. If you heated water and made steam to drive a turbine, you would describe it in terms of thermodynamics, and it would be heat transfer. If you captured photons and converted them to electricity you'd say it was photovoltaics. As Sensei has said, it depends on the reaction rate. And there's plenty of demand for electricity, so e.g. a 1 GW reactor is only a drop in the bucket of what we use. Encasing a star is well beyond any technology we have. The energy released per reaction of fusion is somewhat smaller (~10-100x) than that of fission. It can be higher on an energy per mass of reactants basis. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fusion.html

It's the opposite, I think. People who do not have an emotional investment in the idea tell you that it's flawed (which is not mocking you). The emotional attachment usually lies with the proponent, since they have invested time and effort in the idea, making it harder to accept criticism.

Tiny, meaning if you miscalculate and over-thrust, you might smash into the asteroid. How do you walk when there is essentially no gravity? You push on the asteroid and it accelerates away from you. There is basically no restoring force to bring you back.

That's not much, considering the emissivity is low to begin with. Just because the material isn't shiny doesn't mean it's not reflecting a lot of light. It can be that it's just a diffuse reflection. Whereas painting it with vantablack makes almost 100% absorptive. Going from perhaps 20% absorption to ~100%

No. Power is just energy/time.Energy is a property of things. It is not a substance; it does not have anything like material strength. In this, and the Kugel fountain example above, the support is from water, not energy. The main difference is that it's dynamic rather than static. But energy (or power) is not the proper descriptive term for what's going on.

How much will that gain you?

search for 'rooftop solar water heater' There are passive and active systems

! Moderator Note The first conundrum here is that anyone with the ability to help you won't, because reactionless drives violate Newton's third law of motion. The second is that if you aren't willing to discuss your idea, then it's not a topic for this site.

I don't think the grooves are a major player in this during flight. It's the angular momentum. The bullet grooves are angled, because the rifling is helical

Polinski has been banned as a sockpuppet of Olin (Suzie/Menan)