elfmotat Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 The point is I was asking for and looking for test, that experimentally insulate the radiation impact and recoil effect, - to be able to confirm whether these in fact 2 predictions also fits the theory. If you're looking for an ultra-specific experiment then do it yourself. If Nichols and Hull could do it over a century ago, I don't see why you should have any problems now. I'd be willing to bet my entire savings account that you won't find anything surprising. The possibility that misunderstood science can be found at any weak point, always exist. Even Strange seems to agree to that, and that lets a lot. The scientific process is not in question here. The problem is that you're expecting us to do all of your work for you. All of the links posted here can be easily found with a quick google search. The physics and math involved are not particularly complicated. The half-dozen experiments you've been linked to are not particularly hard to understand. You consistently refuse to meet us half way. If you want to see a particular experiment, search for it yourself. If it hasn't been done, do it yourself. We're not your servants. Put in a little effort.
Strange Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I still don’t know where the garbage is buried; only that it smells ugly, so soon I get too close to Nasa’s 2nd research paper. The possibility that misunderstood science can be found at any weak point, always exist. You know in science reseach the most important is to ask the right question You have clearly demonstrated that you do not have the necessary competence or background knowledge to make any such judgements. Try to ask me why I am so convinced that the Pioneer anomaly is not solved? That belongs in the other thread. This thread is about your claim that photon emission does not conserve momentum. You need to provide some support for this.
Bjarne Posted December 4, 2014 Author Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) If you're looking for an ultra-specific experiment then do it yourself. If Nichols and Hull could do it over a century ago, I don't see why you should have any problems now. I'd be willing to bet my entire savings account that you won't find anything surprising. Yes One way could maybe be to bombard one side of the mill fromj 180° angle and the other from fx 135° ? Or ? But why use time on it when something similar is done This is the bone of content, to uncover, - with this thread, - nothing else. The scientific process is not in question here. The problem is that you're expecting us to do all of your work for you. All of the links posted here can be easily found with a quick google search. It could be nice, I am very lazy. I mean why invent the soup palet agian if someone allready did that. If it hasn't been done, do it yourself. We're not your servants. Put in a little effort. Take it easy Rom was not drunk at one day. You have clearly demonstrated that you do not have the necessary competence or background knowledge to make any such judgements. Even a blind chicken can find a grain of gold. This thread is about your claim that photon emission does not conserve momentum. You wrote that not me I ask for test, maybe allready done, maybe not, so simple that a almost deaf and blind chicken can understand it Edited December 4, 2014 by Bjarne -1
Strange Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 youtube What is the relevance of that to your claims that photons do not conserve momentum?
Bjarne Posted December 4, 2014 Author Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) What is the relevance of that to your claims that photons do not conserve momentum? Why should I answer (again) it seems that you not are reading it anyway. Watch the video, it is about electrons, - photons belong to the same mysterious reality. It is so much we simply don't know. Edited December 4, 2014 by Bjarne
Strange Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 Why should I answer (again) it seems that you not are reading it anyway. Watch the video, it is about electrons, - photons belong to the same mysterious reality. It is so much we simply don't know. Actually, the video is about what we do know. (Not about what you don't know.)
Bjarne Posted December 4, 2014 Author Posted December 4, 2014 Actually, the video is about what we do know. (Not about what you don't know.) Yes we do know that there is a lot we don't know
Sensei Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) I see no single speculation made by Bjarne, so I don't know why whole thread is in speculations sections.. He is just constantly asking for "hard evidence". Asking for proof is not speculation. Speculation would be if he came up with his own theory, his own model. When we're performing classic physics experiment with two solid state matter balls that transfer momentum to other one (like f.e. Newton's cradle, billiard), conservation of momentum is instantly visible. It's what we can call "hard evidence". With single particles it's much harder to perform convincing experiment, as particles are quantum objects. Edited December 4, 2014 by Sensei
swansont Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I see no single speculation made by Bjarne, so I don't know why whole thread is in speculations sections.. He is just constantly asking for "hard evidence". Asking for proof is not speculation. Speculation would be if he came up with his own theory, his own model. When we're performing classic physics experiment with two solid state matter balls that transfer momentum to other one (like f.e. Newton's cradle, billiard), conservation of momentum is instantly visible. It's what we can call "hard evidence". With single particles it's much harder to perform convincing experiment, as particles are quantum objects. ! Moderator Note Since I moved it, I will tell you why: The answer to "is there any hard evidence" is "yes", and that was dealt with in the first couple of posts. It was the continual moving of the goalposts, the fact that it was a hijack of another discussion, and the repeated insistence that emitted radiation would not impart a force — there is no scientific basis for that. Coupled with a more general challenge to the validity of the scientific method. Posts that deny well-accepted physics belong in speculations. And now we've reached the point where the question has been answered and it's quibbling about other matters and posting videos from poor-quality (scientifically) movies that are off-topic, so IMO there's no point in continuing.
Recommended Posts