Re: Momentum problems

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (OC) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (1star1001) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (OC) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (1star1001) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (OC) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > <snip>
<snip>
> With all your posts I got lost, so could you please repeat this so
> important question?

> > <snip for for space>

It was right at the bottom within your above "<snip for for space>" 

Consequently I will now also paraphrase that question for you:- 

As I have agreed unreservedly with EVERY qualification you had made up
to now, and now show you AGAIN the calculation which satisfies all
those requirements, thus justifying the posing of the momentum problem
in the first place, could you please follow through the logic and
algebra of that derivation, showing where if anywhere you think it has
gone wrong.

>From the result of that calculation ON YOUR PART, please confirm that
Energy and Momentum are mutually incompatible IN THIS SPECIFIC thought
experiment situation ,UNLESS causality is violated OR there is another
huge (not yet specified) source of inaccuracy of opposite sign in
classical modelling. This (not yet specified) will mask the soure we
are EXAMINING in THIS PARTICULAR thought experiment, thus creating the
ILLUSION that everything is rosy in the classical universe, [until
everything goes completely haywire at the beginning of time]. This is
why THIS experiment (to test classical theory to breaking point in
THIS SPECIFIC arena) is Absolutely Vital. I ALREADY HAVE the opposite
sign hole in classical energy theory sorted. I have astronomical
verification (planet, comet, & Pioneer spaceships, quantum mechanical
verification, and even applied physics verification from my own
earlier work that has already been released from British state secrecy
classification (but not published). Consequently, I just need SOMEONE,
to repeat this relatively trivial gedanken application of logic and A
level mathematical physics, to then allow us to officially put these
two 'holes' together, with accreditation of all components from all
angles, to make make the whole whole. Pre-geometry is the calculus of
propositios. It uses pure logic to derive truth and indentify
falsehood BEFORE we need to introduce ANY geometrical assumptions. Its
whole point IS to meticulously examine BREAKDOWNS in classical theory,
to get to the answers to larger questions.

> > </OC's snip for for space>

This is the MODEL ANSWER. It is NOT a problem. It is the LAST LINK for
proving the validity of the FIELD EQUATION that einSTein believed in
but could not qyuite reagh.
aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
This is the MODEL ANSWER for your homework. 

> > > > >Let the incident photon have momentum p thus energy pc, and let
> > > > >the returned photon have momentum -p(1-v/c) thus energy pc(1-v/c)
> > > > >The change in photon energy is thus pv.
> > > > >
> > > > >(The relativistic Doppler shift formula I have used here is extremely
> > > > >accurate at low velocities because, via the binomial expansion, the
> > > > >approximation
> > > > >sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]= 1-v/c, only introduces inaccuracies on the
> > > > >scale  of (v/c)^2. Thus, if v is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than
> > > > >c, the approximation is accurate to 40 orders of magnitude)
> > > > >
> > > > >Let the resultant transceiver recession velocity be V, and its
> > > > >received momentum be mV. Its received kinetic energy will thus be
> > > > >mV.V/2.
> > > > >
> > > > >Energy conservation now requires that mV.V/2 = pv. Thus mV = 2pv/V
> > > > >Momentum conservation, in contrast, requires that mV = 2p - pv/c
> > > > >Substituting for mV, we get
> > > > >2pv/V = 2p - pv/c
> > > > >hence v/V = 1 - v/2c  
> > > > >
> > > > >Thus energy will only be conserved if the returned photon is Doppler
> > > > >shifted by almost exactly the recoil velocity of the transmitter that
> > > > >results from the final act of photon detection.
> > > > >
> > > > >I must admit though, I am still not sure where that tiny difference 
> > > > > - v/2c  comes from."

if your answer is any good, you will also derive what the efficiency
of this gedanken engine is if causality is NOT violated.

Since Nothing is important, compared to this, I have snipped all all
else.

V is the total change in velocity of an imaginary mirror, that results
from 'bouncing' a photon off that mirror. We now make Everything as
simple as possible, so that we can achieve rigor(US)/rigour(uk) in the
derivation of the math(US)/maths(uk), thus ensuring absolte certainty
in the result.

The first question you need to ask yourself now is, What would I(OC)
Like the mirror's velocity to be, to make my own homework as easy as
possibe.

You(OC)should proceed in like manner until you get to the end of YOUR
JOB. You already have the model answer for help, if needed, in front
of you.

If you want to make your own  work complicated enough that you and
no-one else can do it, then your contribution will be of no value to
anyone whatsoever. You will get a Dunce's cap and be lampooned planet
wide. Contingency Design work for this last ditch FINAL-SOLUTION had
already started before your last response.

Please post again AFTER you have done your own homework.

I am already VERYvery busy by now on other things, and expect to be
'til next year..

1star1001