Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
21 crawler(s) on-line.
 117 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  33 mins ago
 Bruce72:  35 mins ago
 Rob:  1 hr 6 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  1 hr 22 mins ago
 t0lkien:  1 hr 27 mins ago
 amigakit:  1 hr 48 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  2 hrs 1 min ago
 Troels:  3 hrs 3 mins ago
 Gunnar:  3 hrs 18 mins ago
 zipper:  3 hrs 46 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 30-May-2012 16:17:26
#2021 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@olegil

Quote:
Reading the last two pages have just been baffling. He just does not accept that light is spread out in three dimensions.

Yeah kinda. Lou indeed makes his own model. One where light is artifically constrained, aka like a laser he says, and is emitted into an unconstrained universe. What he says is certainly true in reference to the model.

The problem I see here is fairly simple. Lou's model of the universe is nothing like the universe. Lou's model constrains EM from the Sun. In reality Suns don't emit light like a laser. Lou's model is an unconstrained universe. In reality the universe is constrained as other objects are always emitting their own forces of gravity and EM. These cause collinsons and interference. Again what we see is Lou asserted a model, claimed it true, and skipped over the reviewal of evidence. It's been a consistent problem and one that makes Lou's claim of truth unverifiable. The result isn't just bad science it's worse. It's non-scientific because the constructs are unfalsiable.

Apparently, my model is actual physics and yours is mish-mashing the photon into a particle that loses momentum all by itself...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 30-May-2012 18:11:04
#2022 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
A photon has no electrical charge but has inertia. Why do you keep telling me that it's EM force diminished with distance?

The EM force is not a single photon. The EM force emitted from an object is all of the photons in an area at a specific time. Photons aren't lasers. We could consider photons as traveling 'particles' within a surface area. As the distance increases from the source object the total EM energy is constant. But, that EM energy now exists in a larger area. The target object only receives that energy which makes contact on it's surface.

Here's an example that I hope will help you understand better. Take a deflated balloon and put 100 equally spaced dots on it. Take a breath and blow it up. Now touch that ballon with an object. (say a ball). That ball will touch a certain number of dots. (let's say 16). Now take 3 more breath and blow all 3 into the balloon. It gets bigger. Your dots (energy) is still a constant 100. However, now the same ball no longer touches 16 dots it touches something less (about 1).

The way our sun emits energy is similar to that balloon. While the overall energy remains constant the EM force on an object weakens the further the object gets from the sun. It weakens by the inverse square law - eg the change of size of a sphere. This is why in reality if we measure energy from the sun just outside of each planet we see Mercury will get the most energy from the sun and Neptune (the farthest planet) will get the least energy from the sun.

Quote:
my model is actual physics and yours is mish-mashing the photon into a particle that loses momentum all by itself...
If you go back and read you'll see that photons in reality do indeed travel at the speed of light. Using inertia only is an incomplete picture of the total force received from the EM energy. Instead you must count all the inertia from all the photons hitting that object. There's less photons hitting Earth than Venus even though Earth is bigger than Venus.

Quote:
Can you explain to me where DISTANCE is in the radiation pressure equation?
I took this from your Wikipedia source. Hopefully this quote with the meaning of the radiation pressure equation will help you understand...
Quote:
The time-averaged intensity divided by the speed of light in free space is the radiation pressure exerted by an electromagnetic wave on the surface of a target:

Intensity is photons per area. The sun doesn't stream photons like a laser. It emits them and the distance between each photon increases as the surface area increases. Thus, intensity of force weakens over the distance. By what? The change in surface area of a sphere, which again is why it's dictated by the inverse square law.

Go back to the Balloon Example. The time-averaged intensity for T(1) results in 16 dots touching your object. The time-averaged intensity for T(4) results in 1 dot touching your object. Sunlight has been measured to act the same way as it travels out from the sun the energy remains the same but the intensity weakens. Since the time-averaged intesity for the object at T(4) is less than the time-averaged intensity for the object at T(1) the result is the object at T(4) experiences less radiative pressure.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-May-2012 at 07:01 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 30-May-2012 18:55:15
#2023 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
I am only concerning myself with photons in 1 direction to make a point.
and as a result you ignore inconvenient facts. The Sun is not lasering this planet, if it were we would very quickly evaporate. The "surface area" of the suns photosphere is 6.088 sq km. and radiates a set number of photons per square kilometre. One minute later the same photons are now distributed around the 4,065,872,649,370,857 sq km "surface" of an imaginary sphere centred on the middle of the Sun. The Earth has a radius of 6378 km which means it recieves light from an area of 127796483sq km, of this imaginary sphere which means that at a distance of one light minute, this planet would recieve 3.1431x10^-6% of the total output of the sun. The actual orbital distance of the Earth is 8.31 light minutes, which means that we are are recieving the output of the Sun spread over the surface of an imaginary sphere with 69.168 times the "surface area" which means that we only intercept 4.5x10^-8% of the suns output. The energy levels of individual photons remains undiminished, but photons that would have hit the Earth if we were closer to the Sun simply miss, and as a result the recieved EM energy from the Sun diminishes as the inverse square of the distance.

Quote:
Where I is the intensity of the beam of light (measured in e.g. W⋅m-2). In the above argument we assumed that the surface totally absorbed the beam, in general light can be transmitted, reflected and/or absorbed. If the light were totally reflected then the radiation pressure is doubled compared to total absorption, this is because the photons arrive with momentum E/c and depart with momentum -E/c (the -ve sign indicates traveling in the opposite direction), so the change of momentum is 2E/c. Can you explain to me where DISTANCE is in the radiation pressure equation?
In the case of a tightly constrained beam there is no requirement to take distance into account, however sice the source is a radiating object, the intensity of the light diminishes rather than remaining constant as you have assumed.

Quote:
Apparently, my model is actual physics and yours is mish-mashing the photon into a particle that loses momentum all by itself...
Nice assertion but you have no evidence to support it. The mathematics at the start of this post demonstrates that you are wrong in your assumption of how light travels, just as you are wrong to claim that our model requires photons to lose energy. Individual photons have a consistent energy level. you simply intercept fewer of them at greater distances

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 30-May-2012 19:14:11
#2024 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod

Wow nice job there! I've been trying my darnest not to have Lou work with numbers.

I think Lou provided some of the best evidence against his own postulate. If we look the Radiation Pressure Tables from the link Lou provided we find planets that are more distance have significantly lower amounts of Radiative Pressure. Venus has 17.7 Newtons per Kilometer squared. Earth 9.15 N/km^2. And Jupiter a mere 0.34. If the sun really worked as Lou's postulate contended the N/km^2 would be nearly the same if not the same for all 3 planets.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-May-2012 at 07:23 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 0:38:49
#2025 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
I am only concerning myself with photons in 1 direction to make a point.
and as a result you ignore inconvenient facts. The Sun is not lasering this planet, if it were we would very quickly evaporate. The "surface area" of the suns photosphere is 6.088 sq km. and radiates a set number of photons per square kilometre. One minute later the same photons are now distributed around the 4,065,872,649,370,857 sq km "surface" of an imaginary sphere centred on the middle of the Sun. The Earth has a radius of 6378 km which means it recieves light from an area of 127796483sq km, of this imaginary sphere which means that at a distance of one light minute, this planet would recieve 3.1431x10^-6% of the total output of the sun. The actual orbital distance of the Earth is 8.31 light minutes, which means that we are are recieving the output of the Sun spread over the surface of an imaginary sphere with 69.168 times the "surface area" which means that we only intercept 4.5x10^-8% of the suns output. The energy levels of individual photons remains undiminished, but photons that would have hit the Earth if we were closer to the Sun simply miss, and as a result the recieved EM energy from the Sun diminishes as the inverse square of the distance.

Quote:
Where I is the intensity of the beam of light (measured in e.g. W⋅m-2). In the above argument we assumed that the surface totally absorbed the beam, in general light can be transmitted, reflected and/or absorbed. If the light were totally reflected then the radiation pressure is doubled compared to total absorption, this is because the photons arrive with momentum E/c and depart with momentum -E/c (the -ve sign indicates traveling in the opposite direction), so the change of momentum is 2E/c. Can you explain to me where DISTANCE is in the radiation pressure equation?
In the case of a tightly constrained beam there is no requirement to take distance into account, however sice the source is a radiating object, the intensity of the light diminishes rather than remaining constant as you have assumed.

Quote:
Apparently, my model is actual physics and yours is mish-mashing the photon into a particle that loses momentum all by itself...
Nice assertion but you have no evidence to support it. The mathematics at the start of this post demonstrates that you are wrong in your assumption of how light travels, just as you are wrong to claim that our model requires photons to lose energy. Individual photons have a consistent energy level. you simply intercept fewer of them at greater distances

In your model, a single photon will expand to the size of the universe. Particles don't grow in size. Intensity is just a convenient way to summarize the effect of alot of photons over a given area because they individually are hard to measure. Also, the sun isn't limited to VISIBLE LIGHT.

When you look up at the sky and see a "star" its because a few photons happend to be hitting your eye, they didn't lose energy until they hit particles in our atmosphere. It doesn't look intense because you are only seeing the few that were aimed just right at your eye. Intensity is a measure of the amount of photons, not the energy levels of them. Actually light intensity has 3 definitions... Once again your application of the math is fail.

It's no wonder you two fail to understand anything...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 0:40:03
#2026 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Nimrod

Wow nice job there! I've been trying my darnest not to have Lou work with numbers.

I think Lou provided some of the best evidence against his own postulate. If we look the Radiation Pressure Tables from the link Lou provided we find planets that are more distance have significantly lower amounts of Radiative Pressure. Venus has 17.7 Newtons per Kilometer squared. Earth 9.15 N/km^2. And Jupiter a mere 0.34. If the sun really worked as Lou's postulate contended the N/km^2 would be nearly the same if not the same for all 3 planets.

I think you have both provided enough evidence to show that you fail at applied science.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 2:10:28
#2027 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
I think you have both provided enough evidence to show that you fail at applied science.
I understand your human desire to start throwing up defense mechanisms. But, instead take it as a positive. You've learned something. You've learned your postulated laser Sun doesn't map to reality. That now frees you up to start considering other models and seeing if they map closer to reality. Learning can't exist without stubbing one's toes.

Last edited by BrianK on 31-May-2012 at 02:26 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Frags 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 4:01:55
#2028 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Posts: 971
From: East-Midlands (Nottingham) UK

@Lou

Quote:

When you look up at the sky and see a "star" its because a few photons happend to be hitting your eye, they didn't lose energy until they hit particles in our atmosphere. It doesn't look intense because you are only seeing the few that were aimed just right at your eye. Intensity is a measure of the amount of photons, not the energy levels of them.


Intensity is the RATE at which ENERGY passes through an AREA. It is a measure of both the `amount of photons` and the `energy levels of them`.

Quote:

Actually light intensity has 3 definitions...


No it doesn`t, what are they then?

Quote:

Once again your application of the math is fail.


I see no maths anywhere? Show me some maths!

Quote:


It's no wonder you two fail to understand anything...


So I don`t have to read this whole stupid thing, would you tell me exactly what you`re point is because I`m dying to hear it.

_________________
Fraggle

- insert profound text here -

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 7:57:01
#2029 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@BrianK

Ahem. A laser doesn't even work like that. A laser emits a much tighter beam than the sun, but it is still subject to the inverse square law. As of yet noone has made a perfectly focused beam of photons. To do that you would need to have a point source of coherent photons, and a laser is coherent but definetly not a point source.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 11:25:42
#2030 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@olegil

Quote:

Ahem. A laser doesn't even work like that. A laser emits a much tighter beam than the sun, but it is still subject to the inverse square law. As of yet noone has made a perfectly focused beam of photons. To do that you would need to have a point source of coherent photons, and a laser is coherent but definetly not a point source.
Thanks sir. It's been a while since I played with lasers but if memory servers they are indeed subject to the same inverse square law. It was easier for me to accept Lou's artifical construct of the Sun as a perfect lossless beam emitter and demonstrate how that's not true with relationship to reality than try for a finer detailed discussion.

Feel free to have that discussion with Lou as that perfect laser was his false artifical construct.

Last edited by BrianK on 31-May-2012 at 11:27 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 14:27:48
#2031 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
I think you have both provided enough evidence to show that you fail at applied science.
I understand your human desire to start throwing up defense mechanisms. But, instead take it as a positive. You've learned something. You've learned your postulated laser Sun doesn't map to reality. That now frees you up to start considering other models and seeing if they map closer to reality. Learning can't exist without stubbing one's toes.

Here's what you need to learn...

Let's say I fire a burst of 9 photons and they spread evenly at a +/- 90 degree spread form a 3x3 grid with the one in the center directly pointed at a viewing source. As the other 8 spread out with distance the "intensity" diminished since the effect of the outer 8 going off at 45 degree angles from the center one aren't as close together, the one pointing straight at the viewing source is always there. At a distance of infinity, the viewing source is still receiving a minimum of 1 photon.

So unless something comes between the photon stream and the viewing source, the speed of light is fixed for a photon in a vacuum. It's energy will not change until it interacts with SOMETHNG. That SOMETHING in my example was the planet/object equal in size to the sun in my example. I never mentioned dust or debris in space because it wasn't part of my example. LEARN TO READ what I write and stop adding to it.

Buy a clue.

If the photon lost energy, that's because it hit something and is now actually a new photon that has been emitted as a result.

Nothing I said is wrong in my example. You are simply choosing to add conditions that were not in my statement to prove me wrong, Mr. Twist.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 14:37:59
#2032 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Frags

Quote:

Frags wrote:
@Lou

Quote:

When you look up at the sky and see a "star" its because a few photons happend to be hitting your eye, they didn't lose energy until they hit particles in our atmosphere. It doesn't look intense because you are only seeing the few that were aimed just right at your eye. Intensity is a measure of the amount of photons, not the energy levels of them.


Intensity is the RATE at which ENERGY passes through an AREA. It is a measure of both the `amount of photons` and the `energy levels of them`.

Thank you captain obvious!

Quote:

Quote:

Actually light intensity has 3 definitions...


No it doesn`t, what are they then?

Apparently the internet is too difficult?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_intensity

Quote:

Quote:

Once again your application of the math is fail.


I see no maths anywhere? Show me some maths!

Perhaps reading the post I was replying too would give you what you want?

Quote:

Quote:

It's no wonder you two fail to understand anything...


So I don`t have to read this whole stupid thing, would you tell me exactly what you`re point is because I`m dying to hear it.

You'll have to go back a couple of threads...and since you have some comprehension problems as I pointed out above, Page 1 is the beginning.

Last edited by Lou on 31-May-2012 at 02:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 14:51:19
#2033 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@olegil

Quote:

Ahem. A laser doesn't even work like that. A laser emits a much tighter beam than the sun, but it is still subject to the inverse square law. As of yet noone has made a perfectly focused beam of photons. To do that you would need to have a point source of coherent photons, and a laser is coherent but definetly not a point source.
Thanks sir. It's been a while since I played with lasers but if memory servers they are indeed subject to the same inverse square law. It was easier for me to accept Lou's artifical construct of the Sun as a perfect lossless beam emitter and demonstrate how that's not true with relationship to reality than try for a finer detailed discussion.

Feel free to have that discussion with Lou as that perfect laser was his false artifical construct.

Yes, Mr. Twist, I created an artificial construct between a light source and a body absorbing the light in a vacuum to show that even at a distance of infinity there is a minimum amount of photons that will always be absorbed by this absorbing body which would then receive increase inertia from.

This was to illustrate how galaxies too far apart to affect each other by gravity can still push each other apart by radiation pressure.

Perhaps when you stop picking individual sentences apart and actually ingest whole paragraphs, you might actually be considered "normal"...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 15:36:01
#2034 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Yes, Mr. Twist,
you might actually be considered "normal

Why do you insist on name calling and insults instead of discussing issues? I've been trying hard to ignore it. This time I reported you to the admins. Perhaps they can get you back on course as friendly reminders and ignoring don't seem to be doing the job.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 15:39:36
#2035 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Yes, Mr. Twist,
you might actually be considered "normal

Why do you insist on name calling and insults instead of discussing issues? I've been trying hard to ignore it. This time I reported you to the admins. Perhaps they can get you back on course as friendly reminders and ignoring don't seem to be doing the job.

Why do you insist on twisting all my words to make me look wrong?

I'd report you to the admins but I'm just not that type of guy. I merely call a spade a spade.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Frags 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 15:41:42
#2036 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 23-Nov-2004
Posts: 971
From: East-Midlands (Nottingham) UK

@Lou

Changed my mind, can`t be bothered.

_________________
Fraggle

- insert profound text here -

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 15:55:26
#2037 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Here's what you need to learn...
the speed of light is fixed for a photon in a vacuum.

I've repeatedly stated the speed of light is 'c' in a vacuum. Your presentation appears that you are choosing to ignore the fact that we actually agree on the consistent speed of light.

Quote:
It's energy will not change until it interacts with SOMETHNG.
And you are certainly correct again that the energy will not change until it interacts with something.

Where I see the disagreement here is EM Force hitting the object is Intensity. Or we might say photons per area. And as the photons travel away from the source the area factor changes. Which means photons per area is reduced along it's journey to infinity. That is why Pluto receives less energy than Mecury.

Quote:
. I never mentioned dust or debris in space because it wasn't part of my example.
Nor did I. LEARN TO READ what I write and stop adding to it.

Quote:
Nothing I said is wrong in my example.

What's wrong in your example is while the overall force form a single photon is going to be the same the number of photons that can hit a distance object is lessend. Your view of force fails to take into account 'all forces hitting the object' or not.

So for example while Earth is larger than Venus your model would indicate Earth receives a larger amount of force. It doesn't. Earth receives less photons per area and therefore a smaller amount of force than does Venus.

....
Here is some data from your provided evidence which you should consider.
The Radiative Pressure on planets in the solar system is not a constant. It decreases with distance. I contend by the inverse square law.
Again using your source we see at .1AU the Radiative Pressure is 915uPa (microPascals) or if you want Newtons per area (which is km squared). 915 N/km*km. As we travel to Jupiter we've changed our distance to 5.22AU. So let's apply the 'inverse square law' "postulate" to the data we have to see if indeed the Radiative Pressure is decreased.

.1AU to 5.22AU is a 1/52.2 relationship. So take 915 and divide by 52.2 and then divide it again. As you can see I've applied the inverse square relationship. Turns out 915/52.2/52.2 = 0.336 N/Km^2 would be the expected value. Checking back and indeed we see Radiative Pressure from the Sun at the point of Jupiter is .34 It's not a constant as the 'laser sun postulate' you created would contend.

Now to be clear here because you seem to be confused those photons which are encompassed in the .336 Newtons per KM/KM are traveling at the speed of light. The claim you made that I somehow caused inertia to be lost is indeed completely false.

...

So getting back to what this is all about. You claimed when Gravity hits 0. (which it never does it only approaches 0) that the EM Force takes over. The Radiative Pressure works in the same way as gravity. Both have the inertia of the speed of light and both are decreased by the inverse square law. So whenever we have both forces at play the dominate force is always the dominate force and the ratio between the two are always consistent. (This of course includes your assumption that these forces travel unopposed in their journey.)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 15:58:57
#2038 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Why do you insist on twisting all my words to make me look wrong?

I don't. You are either phrasing badly or simply not understanding. Then you blame others in pointing out the problems in your postulates and lack of evidence. Or in the case here counter to the prevalent evidence.

Quote:
I'd report you to the admins but I'm just not that type of guy. I merely call a spade a spade.
And I'm not the type of guy to call others names. Instead I've pointed it out, ignored it. And instead hope others will evolve to the point they can discuss topics rather then throw out cheap personal jabs.

Last edited by BrianK on 31-May-2012 at 04:01 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
zerohero 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 17:59:25
#2039 ]
Team Member
Joined: 4-May-2004
Posts: 2524
From: Uddevalla, Sweden

@BrianK and @Lou

Keep it clean please, I know it can be difficult after 102 pages of discussion, but you will just have to try.

No name calling!

Regards,
Joachim Birging

AmigaWorld.Net staff

_________________
Common sense - So rare it's almost like a super power

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 31-May-2012 19:29:27
#2040 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Here's what you need to learn...
the speed of light is fixed for a photon in a vacuum.

I've repeatedly stated the speed of light is 'c' in a vacuum. Your presentation appears that you are choosing to ignore the fact that we actually agree on the consistent speed of light.

Quote:
It's energy will not change until it interacts with SOMETHNG.
And you are certainly correct again that the energy will not change until it interacts with something.

Where I see the disagreement here is EM Force hitting the object is Intensity. Or we might say photons per area. And as the photons travel away from the source the area factor changes. Which means photons per area is reduced along it's journey to infinity. That is why Pluto receives less energy than Mecury.

Quote:
. I never mentioned dust or debris in space because it wasn't part of my example.
Nor did I. LEARN TO READ what I write and stop adding to it.

Quote:
Nothing I said is wrong in my example.

What's wrong in your example is while the overall force form a single photon is going to be the same the number of photons that can hit a distance object is lessend. Your view of force fails to take into account 'all forces hitting the object' or not.

So for example while Earth is larger than Venus your model would indicate Earth receives a larger amount of force. It doesn't. Earth receives less photons per area and therefore a smaller amount of force than does Venus.

....
Here is some data from your provided evidence which you should consider.
The Radiative Pressure on planets in the solar system is not a constant. It decreases with distance. I contend by the inverse square law.
Again using your source we see at .1AU the Radiative Pressure is 915uPa (microPascals) or if you want Newtons per area (which is km squared). 915 N/km*km. As we travel to Jupiter we've changed our distance to 5.22AU. So let's apply the 'inverse square law' "postulate" to the data we have to see if indeed the Radiative Pressure is decreased.

.1AU to 5.22AU is a 1/52.2 relationship. So take 915 and divide by 52.2 and then divide it again. As you can see I've applied the inverse square relationship. Turns out 915/52.2/52.2 = 0.336 N/Km^2 would be the expected value. Checking back and indeed we see Radiative Pressure from the Sun at the point of Jupiter is .34 It's not a constant as the 'laser sun postulate' you created would contend.

Now to be clear here because you seem to be confused those photons which are encompassed in the .336 Newtons per KM/KM are traveling at the speed of light. The claim you made that I somehow caused inertia to be lost is indeed completely false.

...

So getting back to what this is all about. You claimed when Gravity hits 0. (which it never does it only approaches 0) that the EM Force takes over. The Radiative Pressure works in the same way as gravity. Both have the inertia of the speed of light and both are decreased by the inverse square law. So whenever we have both forces at play the dominate force is always the dominate force and the ratio between the two are always consistent. (This of course includes your assumption that these forces travel unopposed in their journey.)

If Venus and Earth are at distance infinity from the sun, the earth will receive more photons because it's diameter is larger than Venus'. As it stands at this moment in time, the # of photons angled at Venus are greater than at Earth simply because Venus is closer to the sun at this point.

Why do you keep introducing variables?
Why do you keep changing the goal posts when the subject matter is about GALAXIES?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle