Re: recoiling photons evidence?

"ralph sansbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "ralph sansbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > The mass of the photon remains zero. The factor called
> > > > reativistic mass can be useful for massive particles as
> > > > long as you remain aware of its limitations but is doesn't
> > > > work for photons as it becomes undefined (not infinite).
> > >
> > >    Yes if you add the premise to the list of photon premises that
> > > the change in the velocity of the proton as it moves from rest to
> > > the speed of light is instantaneous unlike any other particle.
> >
> > Nonsense, the formula you gave is (rest mass)/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2
>
>    Nonsense we are talking physics not mathematics. No particles
> except photons accelerate instaneously and so as in Kaufmann's
> original and mass spectrometer etc readings, masses appear
> to increase as they approach eg .1c the speed of light according
> to the above formula.

The above formula you posted says a photon's mass would be
zero for all speeds even infinitesimally below v=c because
your term (rest mass) = 0.

>    Hence unless you add this unnatural premise to photons then
> the photon mass becomes infinite before it becomes undefined.

The equation _never_ gives you any value other than zero.
Check your arithmetic, it isn't even increasing, never mind
becoming infinite. It goes straight from zero to "don't know".

> > For all speeds v<c, that is zero, the limit as v->c is zero
> > and if v=c it is 0/0 which is undefined. It is never infinite
> > under any conditions.
> > Relativistic mass, as you have found out,
> > doesn't work for photons.
>     That is exactly my point.

So stop using this antiquated approach and use the modern
method which works perfectly.

> Therefore you can not assume that
> the conservation of momentum for photons is like the conservation
> of momentum for other particles like bullets and guns.

The momentum of photons is measured, not assumed, and
is found to be conserved, just like any other particle.

>   Yes the momentum conservation of photons and electrons
> in the Compton and  the the laser particle suspension cases
> is different

No, a collision with a photon imparts momentum just like
a collision with any other particle.

> in these cases than that which occurs in bullets and
> guns because of the difference in the characteristics of the photon
> particle and all other particles

As far as momentum goes, photons are just like any other
particle.

> > > > >   Now the question is is this enough to explain the anomalous
> > > > > acceleration?
> > > > No. The measured acceleration corresponds to 56W of power and
> > > > is towards the Sun while the beam is 8W and pushes the craft
> > > > away from the Sun. The anomaly is treated as 63W equivalent
> > > > since 8W worth of push is used overcoming the beam reaction.
> > >
> > >    The speed of the spacecraft is greater than the speed of planets at
the
> > > same distance so it may be that the possible charge polarization
> > proportional to the motion of objects that can explain the gravitational
attraction to
> > the sun of planets and other objects is greater than that implied by the
force of
> > gravity  which does not take this explicitly into account.
> >
> > The planets do not show the anomaly,
>
>      My point was that the spacecraft is moving faster than a planet would
> at its various distances from the sun.

The speeds are within an order of magnitude but an effect
anywhere near that on the planets would disrupt the orbits
so grossly it would be easily detectable.

>  and the anomalous
> > acceleration of the craft is independent of the distance
> > from the Sun.
>
>    But is it independent of the speed of the craft?

The speed of the craft is almost constant so that cannot
be determined.

>  Charge effects are calculated in the
> > Anderson paper and ruled out.
> >
>     I'm not talking about charge effects but about charge
> polarization effects where the dipole lengths are 10^-18 meters

Then by all means do the calculations and see what
acceleration you get.

George