IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags angular momentum , linear momentum , momentum , special relativity

Reply
Old 16th June 2022, 03:02 PM   #81
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. E=mc2. That applies to the batteries too.

Where does that mass go? It doesn't teleport from the battery to the photon. It travels with the electrons which the battery put into a higher energy (and thus higher mass) state. These electrons then lose mass at the LED diode when emitting the photon. So the creation of the photon still involves an electron losing mass at the LED.
Close but not completely correct.
Let us assume the following circuit:
The plus/positive battery pole/clamp (1) is connected to switch input pole/clamp (2) with a wire.
The switch output pole/clamp (3) is connected to diode + anode (4) with a wire.
The minus/negative battery pole/clamp (5) is connected to - cathode (6) with a wire.

When the switch is off the voltage delta is between switch input pole (2) and - cathode (6).
When the switch is on the voltage delta is between + anode (4) and - cathode (6).
The energy from battery travels along the wire through EM field.
The voltage delta will excite an electron from the - cathode (6) tip that is available for the flow.
The first electron that would emit light is already at the - cathode (6) tip when the switch is turned on.
The first electron would not come from the battery.

Assuming only one photon emitted the light between on/off change then energy from the battery gave energy through the EM field to the electron at the - cathode (6) tip to become free, to cross the cavity.
The electron does 'Bremsstrahlung' at the end of cavity, the electron changes its kinetic energy for the photon.
In conclusion the energy came to the LED from the battery and the mass is missing from the battery at the center of the flashlight.
The mass is not missing at the tip.

To think about it differently.
There is our setup from the above.
We turn on the switch and we let it go for a day.
We turn off the switch.
Where is the 'mass hole'?
... in the battery, center of the flashlight, there is no 'mass hole' at the LED.
Why this would not apply for one electron and photon?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 03:10 PM   #82
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
One of the simplest scenarios to do the calculations on is the case of a coaxial cable for the battery to whatever itís running. You get a radial electric field between the high voltage side and the low voltage side, and you get a circumferential magnetic field from the currents through the wires. And you even get momentum being carried down the wires by the field. Itís interesting stuff, but well beyond SDGís level of understanding.

And none of that changes the fact that the electron is losing mass at the point of emission.
Using shielded twisted pair cable eliminates significant momentum concern from the EM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 04:37 PM   #83
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The electron does 'Bremsstrahlung' at the end of cavity, the electron changes its kinetic energy for the photon.
I assume the word I highlighted is a comical misspelling of electroluminescence.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
In conclusion the energy came to the LED from the battery and the mass is missing from the battery at the center of the flashlight.
The mass is not missing at the tip.
Just before World War II, the United States built four South Dakota class battleships. Two have been preserved as museums, so you can walk around inside them and imagine the process described below.

Their main armament consisted of nine 16-inch guns, but let's consider what happens when only one of those guns is fired. With an armor-piercing round and full propellant, almost 1.5 tons of mass disappears through the muzzle.

During the next 30 seconds or so, a new load can be advanced by one station along the partially mechanized but labor-intensive path that starts deep within the heavily armored barbette beneath the gun turret. When the previous equilibrium is re-established, the gun is once again ready to fire.

When the gun is fired, mass disappears through the tip of the gun. A much slower process redistributes the remaining mass. One could reasonably say the overall net effect is to remove 1.5 tons from the bowels of the ship each time the gun is fired and reloaded.

On the other hand, one cannot reasonably deny the fact that 1.5 tons leave the muzzle of the gun each time it is fired. To deny that fact would be idiotic.

I invite SDG to contemplate this analogy between 16-inch guns and LEDs.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 16th June 2022 at 05:07 PM. Reason: misspelled word (no, not that one!) and added word in italics
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 05:02 PM   #84
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I assume the word I highlighted is a comical misspelling of electroluminescence.


Just before World War II, the United States built four South Dakota class battleships. Two have been preserved as museums, so you can walk around inside them and imagine the process described below.

Their main armanent consisted of nine 16-inch guns, but let's consider what happens when only one of those guns is fired. With an armor-piercing round and full propellant, almost 1.5 tons of mass disappears through the muzzle.

During the next 30 seconds or so, a new load can be advanced by one station along the partially mechanized but labor-intensive path that starts deep within the heavily armored barbette beneath the gun turret. When the previous equilibrium is re-established, the gun is once again ready to fire.

When the gun is fired, mass disappears through the tip of the gun. A much slower process redistributes the mass. One could reasonably say the overall net effect is to remove 1.5 tons from the bowels of the ship each time the gun is fired and reloaded.

On the other hand, one cannot reasonably deny the fact that 1.5 tons leave the muzzle of the gun each time it is fired. To deny that fact would be idiotic.

I invite SDG to contemplate this analogy between 16-inch guns and LEDs.
Did you have a chance to read the whole thread from the beginning?
Is there an x component of Precoil observed from the outside frame?

Last edited by SDG; 16th June 2022 at 05:03 PM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 05:07 PM   #85
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The electron does 'Bremsstrahlung' at the end of cavity, the electron changes its kinetic energy for the photon.
This is wrong. Itís wrong in the case of a semiconductor for the same reason itís wrong for hydrogen. You really have no clue at all how quantum mechanics work. Youíre just throwing around terms that you donít actually understand.

Quote:
In conclusion the energy came to the LED from the battery
Originally, yes. But not at the moment of photon creation. The energy (and thus mass) must be transferred to the LED before it can be converted into a photon. So the mass change at the moment of photon creation is still happening at the LED. That mass was transferred there prior to that moment isnít relevant for the current discussion.

As for your contention of what happens over an extended period of time, that wonít change anything either. The transfer of mass from the battery to the LED will shift the flashlight downwards, so you still introduce angular momentum changes in the moving frame, without spinning the flashlight.

tl;dr is still you donít understand what happens, you donít understand angular momentum, and the flashlight will not spin in any reference frame. Your imagined paradox is merely your own failure of understanding. You are not smarter or more knowledgeable than the entire profession of physics. And this is all just a Dunning-Kruger effect.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 05:18 PM   #86
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Using shielded twisted pair cable eliminates significant momentum concern from the EM.
No, it doesnít. You have no clue how electromagnetism works, or how EM fields can carry momentum.

Twisted pair cables are used to reduce EM fields at a distance. But 1) they are worse at doing this than coaxial cables. They are used instead of coaxial cables because they are cheaper and more flexible, not because they are better at shielding. And 2), the really important part, twisted pair reduces fields at a distance, but NOT in the space between the wires. And thatís where the fields will carry momentum in such a case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 06:29 PM   #87
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

Originally, yes. But not at the moment of photon creation. The energy (and thus mass) must be transferred to the LED before it can be converted into a photon. So the mass change at the moment of photon creation is still happening at the LED. That mass was transferred there prior to that moment isnít relevant for the current discussion.
...

This is from your post:
Quote:
The former center of mass is not the new center of mass.
That's how you were defending there is no torque.
I just showed you that the center of mass is the same prior and after the photon emission.

As you say: "The energy (and thus mass) must be transferred to the LED before it can be converted into a photon."
... this is the reason the center of mass does not change.
We control the position of batteries, we can place the center of mass anywhere we want.

Your no torque defence with the varying center of mass position does not hold.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 06:44 PM   #88
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
That's how you were defending there is no torque.
I just showed you that the center of mass is the same prior and after the photon emission.
Again, this is wrong. You did not show this, because it isnít true.

Quote:
We control the position of batteries, we can place the center of mass anywhere we want.
As mass moves from the battery to the front of the flashlight, the center of gravity viewed externally will remain motionless but will move forwards relative to the battery. This means that the flashlight and battery will move backwards.

Then when the photon is emitted, the total mass decreases, but since mass is lost from the front, the center of gravity will move backwards. The center of gravity has returned to the battery, but the battery is already shifted from its original position, accounting for the change in angular momentum and thus torque in the moving frame, with no rotation.

You arenít keeping track of everything thatís going on, and you are mistaking your own oversights for insight. You are way, way out of your depth.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 07:19 PM   #89
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,346
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Did you have a chance to read the whole thread from the beginning?
Is there an x component of Precoil observed from the outside frame?
No, there isn't. The x component of velocity is unchanging, so there is no x component of impulse. The fundamental problem here is not that relativity is wrong, it's that you don't understand vectors.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 07:29 PM   #90
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,450
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Did you have a chance to read the whole thread from the beginning?
Yes. It's been amusing.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Is there an x component of Precoil observed from the outside frame?
The easiest way to analyze this is to use an inertial frame in which the flashlight is initially at rest and never has any velocity or momentum in the horizontal direction (which I assume to be your x axis). Having obtained that solution, its coordinates can be transformed to the coordinates of any other inertial frame. Such transformations are mere changes of spacetime coordinates, and as such cannot change the spacetime manifold itself. The flashlight is not rotating in one inertial frame, so it cannot be rotating in any other inertial frame.
Before someone asks about rotating frames, which can be admissible in general relativity: Rotating frames are not inertial. Besides, this thread is alleged to be about special relativity.
You appear to believe there is an inertial frame in which the flashlight is rotating, so it is obvious (to anyone who understands the basic mathematics) that you've made some kind of mistake. Throughout this thread, the only real question has been the nature of your mistake. We now know you have made quite a variety of mistakes.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 09:02 PM   #91
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

As for your contention of what happens over an extended period of time, that wonít change anything either. The transfer of mass from the battery to the LED will shift the flashlight downwards, so you still introduce angular momentum changes in the moving frame, without spinning the flashlight.

...
That is the reason I said this
Quote:
If we are worried about EM field being transferred along wire from the batteries to the LEDs then we can have the same setup, creating symmetry, towards the opposite side.
Having said that, the LEDs at the back would not emit photons out but towards each other into a 'triangle' receiver to eliminate torquing at the back.
in my post #61.

Based on this the y position of the center would not change at the moment of emission and the torquing/spinning would start, right?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 09:04 PM   #92
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Yes. It's been amusing.


The easiest way to analyze this is to use an inertial frame in which the flashlight is initially at rest and never has any velocity or momentum in the horizontal direction (which I assume to be your x axis). Having obtained that solution, its coordinates can be transformed to the coordinates of any other inertial frame. Such transformations are mere changes of spacetime coordinates, and as such cannot change the spacetime manifold itself. The flashlight is not rotating in one inertial frame, so it cannot be rotating in any other inertial frame.
Before someone asks about rotating frames, which can be admissible in general relativity: Rotating frames are not inertial. Besides, this thread is alleged to be about special relativity.
You appear to believe there is an inertial frame in which the flashlight is rotating, so it is obvious (to anyone who understands the basic mathematics) that you've made some kind of mistake. Throughout this thread, the only real question has been the nature of your mistake. We now know you have made quite a variety of mistakes.
That is the whole point, aberration of light creates the delta in recoil momentum.
The aberration gives it the x component.
One frame (the rest frame) predicts no rotation and all other frames predict some rotation.

Last edited by SDG; 16th June 2022 at 09:08 PM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2022, 09:14 PM   #93
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
That is the whole point, aberration of light creates the delta in recoil momentum.
The aberration gives it the x component.
One frame (the rest frame) predicts no rotation and all other frames predict some rotation.
No, SDG. No frames predict rotation. You still donít understand angular momentum. You still donít understand how it changes with shifting center of gravity.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 12:10 AM   #94
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,346
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
That is the whole point, aberration of light creates the delta in recoil momentum.
The aberration gives it the x component.
One frame (the rest frame) predicts no rotation and all other frames predict some rotation.
I asked you to explain that upthread and you ignored it. I suspect you misunderstand aberration as spectacularly as you misunderstand vectors and light emitting diodes - the very fact you're applying the concept to a single photon strongly suggests it - but your assertion is so meaningless, it's hard to fathom what you think you mean.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 06:10 AM   #95
slyjoe
Illuminator
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,164
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
One of the simplest scenarios to do the calculations on is the case of a coaxial cable for the battery to whatever itís running. You get a radial electric field between the high voltage side and the low voltage side, and you get a circumferential magnetic field from the currents through the wires. And you even get momentum being carried down the wires by the field. Itís interesting stuff, but well beyond SDGís level of understanding.

And none of that changes the fact that the electron is losing mass at the point of emission.
I was directing my comment to SDG, but thanks anyway. As an EE, I worried about E and M fields, not so much momentum.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 06:30 AM   #96
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
I was directing my comment to SDG, but thanks anyway. As an EE, I worried about E and M fields, not so much momentum.
In most situations the momentum involved is too small to be detected, let alone matter, but it's not zero. Classically, it's identical to radiation pressure, and is even calculated the same way (proportional to the integral over space of the cross product between electric and magnetic fields). So you would be safe ignoring it for the same reasons that, say, structural engineers don't worry about radiation pressure on buildings.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 06:38 AM   #97
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
OK, SDG, let's do a challenge. Let's crunch some numbers. We can make this an unrealistic flashlight (ie, it could output more power than any actual flashlight), so science fiction which obeys basic constraints is OK.

So here's what we do. Pick an initial mass for your flashlight (the mass will change over time). Pick a size (specifically, we need distance from center of gravity to the side which emits). Pick a power output. Pick a velocity for our moving reference frame. Crunch the numbers, see what the recoil pressure is, see what the recoil acceleration is, see what the torque you calculate in the moving frame is, calculate what the angular momentum should be in the moving frame.

And we will see whether or not the flashlight really spins.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 12:58 PM   #98
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Before we do numbers we need to understand what is happening in the cavity.


There is the electric field between anode and cathode in -Y direction.

This is straight from Einstein's 1905 paper:


X, Y, Z - electric field in the rest frame
L, M, N - magnetic field in the rest frame
X', Y', Z' - electric field in the moving frame
L', M', N' - magnetic field in the moving frame
\Beta - Lorentz factor

The rest frame has all values 0 only -Y electric field.

We apply transformation from the rest frame to moving frame and we get -Y' electric field in the moving frame, but there is also +N' magnetic field in the moving frame.
This moving frame magnetic field is coming towards us, arrow coming out of the computer screen, right between the anode and cathode.

Do you agree?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 02:03 PM   #99
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Before we do numbers we need to understand what is happening in the cavity.
What exactly do you imagine the cavity even is, and what do you think is happening in the cavity? Because in the context of an LED, a cavity isn't what you seem to think it is. It is not a gap between the cathode and the anode.

You are way out of your depth here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 08:18 PM   #100
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What exactly do you imagine the cavity even is, and what do you think is happening in the cavity? Because in the context of an LED, a cavity isn't what you seem to think it is. It is not a gap between the cathode and the anode.

You are way out of your depth here.
Right, I agree, I have not designed my own LED
Having said that:
https://www.photonics.intec.ugent.be...d/pub_1708.pdf





The diagram I showed is simplified but close enough.
There is a possible design; anode and cathode as I showed it.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2022, 09:57 PM   #101
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The diagram I showed is simplified but close enough.
There is a possible design; anode and cathode as I showed it.
You didnít actually answer my question. And I donít think you understand what those diagrams represent. You googled some words, found a link, and thatís as far as you could actually go. You donít know enough to actually make sense of what you found.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 01:05 AM   #102
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,346
Jesus Christ, you're trying to define a thought experiment involving a single photon in free space and you decided an eye diagram was relevant? This is like watching a chimpanzee trying to use Wikipedia. OK, if introducing irrelevant concepts is what floats your boat, is the semiconductor material you use for your LED direct or indirect gap, and what are the electron, light hole and heavy hole effective masses? None of it has the slightest relevance to your thought experiment, but neither does aberration or Bremsstrahlung.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 05:23 AM   #103
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
To achieve a light emission electrons have to separate from the cathode.
Electrons flow in the magnetic field and they will drift to the left considering the setup from the above.
That's the physical cause for the rotation, this is what determines the recoil direction.

Last edited by SDG; 18th June 2022 at 05:25 AM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 05:32 AM   #104
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Jesus Christ, you're trying to define a thought experiment involving a single photon in free space and you decided an eye diagram was relevant? This is like watching a chimpanzee trying to use Wikipedia. OK, if introducing irrelevant concepts is what floats your boat, is the semiconductor material you use for your LED direct or indirect gap, and what are the electron, light hole and heavy hole effective masses? None of it has the slightest relevance to your thought experiment, but neither does aberration or Bremsstrahlung.

Dave
The thought experiment is simplified but it holds.
The key attribute is to see how electrons drift in the magnetic field.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 05:37 AM   #105
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
To achieve a light emission electrons have to separate from the cathode.
Electrons flow in the magnetic field and they will drift to the left considering the setup from the above.
That's the physical cause for the rotation, this is what determines the recoil direction.
No, it isn't. First off, the scaling is wrong. The magnetic field due to the diode current will scale with current, the deflection of individual electrons will scale with current, so the total deflection will scale with current squared, but the photon output will only scale with current.

Second and even more damningly, the magnetic field can be controlled independently. You can apply a static magnetic field to point whichever way you want, and it won't change the photon output. You could deflect the electrons in any direction you want, and nothing would change. So none of this can have anything to do with your idea.

You are, as usual, just completely and utterly wrong.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 05:51 AM   #106
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it isn't. First off, the scaling is wrong. The magnetic field due to the diode current will scale with current, the deflection of individual electrons will scale with current, so the total deflection will scale with current squared, but the photon output will only scale with current.

Second and even more damningly, the magnetic field can be controlled independently. You can apply a static magnetic field to point whichever way you want, and it won't change the photon output. You could deflect the electrons in any direction you want, and nothing would change. So none of this can have anything to do with your idea.

You are, as usual, just completely and utterly wrong.
Please, pause for a second.



This is in the rest frame. There is only -Y electric field nothing else.
Are electrons going to move in the straight direction in the rest frame?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 06:18 AM   #107
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Please, pause for a second.

https://i.imgur.com/pQbT8bJ.png

This is in the rest frame. There is only -Y electric field nothing else.
Are electrons going to move in the straight direction in the rest frame?
It doesn't matter the frame. Your picture is not an accurate drawing of what's happening inside the diode. There's actually very little electric field at the junction when driven with forward bias. The electric field isn't what drives the transition. In fact, the electric field at the junction is larger when there is NO bias and NO current than when there is current under forward bias..

Your understanding has no connection to what's actually going on in an LED. You are completely clueless.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 06:25 AM   #108
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It doesn't matter the frame. Your picture is not an accurate drawing of what's happening inside the diode. There's actually very little electric field at the junction when driven with forward bias. The electric field isn't what drives the transition. In fact, the electric field at the junction is larger when there is NO bias and NO current than when there is current under forward bias..

Your understanding has no connection to what's actually going on in an LED. You are completely clueless.
You said:
Quote:
We can make this an unrealistic flashlight (ie, it could output more power than any actual flashlight),
I am doing that all along. I know the effect is very tiny, nevertheless, the electron flow is there and the diagram above is very much simplification.

The question stands.
Are electrons going to move in the straight direction in the rest frame?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 06:30 AM   #109
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
You said:


I am doing that all along. I know the effect is very tiny, nevertheless, the electron flow is there and the diagram above is very much simplification.

The question stands.
Are electrons going to move in the straight direction in the rest frame?
They can take whatever path you want them to, it doesn't matter. The direction of motion is not relevant. The electrons can even be stationary when they emit a photon. LEDs do not work the way you think they work. You insisted that it was important that this was an LED (it isn't), but your entire conception of them is wrong.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 11:48 AM   #110
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They can take whatever path you want them to, it doesn't matter. The direction of motion is not relevant. The electrons can even be stationary when they emit a photon. LEDs do not work the way you think they work. You insisted that it was important that this was an LED (it isn't), but your entire conception of them is wrong.
Let us briefly talk electromagnetism to clarify the idea of the thought experiment and the setup.
If we had the anode and cathode in a shielded quartz vacuum chamber in a decent vacuum (non-collisional plasma), collisions mean free path is bigger than distance between anode and cathode, then electrons would move in a straight line more or less within uncertainty boundaries of the path.
Do you agree?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 01:36 PM   #111
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
The Hall effect



Not only in vacuum...
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 03:10 PM   #112
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Why the hell do you keep going on about vacuums? There are no vacuums in an LED. An LED does not behave like a vacuum tube. No part of an LED operates anything like your vacuum tube drawing. Electrons are never accelerated across any gap.

And I know plenty about the Hall effect. I've used Hall probes to measure magnetic field strength.

But the Hall effect isn't relevant here. You can make a magnetic field point in any direction you want. Hell, you can make the electon travel in any direction you want. It won't make any difference.

You still have no clue about how an LED works. They are not sensitive to magnetic fields.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 02:33 AM   #113
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You still have no clue about how an LED works. They are not sensitive to magnetic fields.
Maybe we should go back to the OP and like already proposed, do a classical version of a gun firing a bullet. It is obvious that SDG will come up with more and more complex stuff (e.g. bring up the magnetic vector potential and the behaviour of electrons, the experiment's name is avoiding me at the moment :-) ) only to keep away from the actual discussion that was started in the OP.
__________________
Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes
twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 07:40 AM   #114
SDG
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why the hell do you keep going on about vacuums? There are no vacuums in an LED. An LED does not behave like a vacuum tube. No part of an LED operates anything like your vacuum tube drawing. Electrons are never accelerated across any gap.

And I know plenty about the Hall effect. I've used Hall probes to measure magnetic field strength.

But the Hall effect isn't relevant here. You can make a magnetic field point in any direction you want. Hell, you can make the electon travel in any direction you want. It won't make any difference.

You still have no clue about how an LED works. They are not sensitive to magnetic fields.
Here is the equation from Einstein's 1905 paper:




If the rest frame has all values 0 and only -Y electric field exists then there is additional N' magnetic field in the moving frame after transformation from the rest frame to the moving frame.
That is the reason why electrons will start to drift.
Electrons are suppose to move in a 'straight' path in the electric field in the rest frame.
But they are going to drift in the moving frame due to N' magnetic field.
This is a contradiction between inertial reference frames.

Pointing out the Hall effect shows this happens in (semi)conductors as well.
This is the physical reason for the flashlight rotation.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 08:20 AM   #115
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,523
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Here is the equation from Einstein's 1905 paper:

https://i.imgur.com/36SuI5J.png


If the rest frame has all values 0 and only -Y electric field exists then there is additional N' magnetic field in the moving frame after transformation from the rest frame to the moving frame.
That is the reason why electrons will start to drift.
Electrons are suppose to move in a 'straight' path in the electric field in the rest frame.
But they are going to drift in the moving frame due to N' magnetic field.
This is a contradiction between inertial reference frames.
Not in the least, a magnetic field results from a time varying electrical field. In the rest frame the electric field doesn't vary over time and only varies over space. In the moving frame it varies over both time and space. The "drift" as you put it in the moving frame is what keeps the electrons moving apparently straight in the electrical field of the rest frame. Just as space and time vary from one to the other in relativity so too do electrical and magnetic fields. That's the basses of the interchangeability "between inertial reference frames" and not a "contradiction between inertial reference frames". Part of the spatial component of the rest frame becomes the time component of the moving frame. ETA: As such part of the static electrical field of the rest frame becomes a magnetic field in the moving frame.

ETA2: Again, as noted before by Ziggurat this vacuum gap type application is not how LEDs work.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Pointing out the Hall effect shows this happens in (semi)conductors as well.
This is the physical reason for the flashlight rotation.
No, as noted by Ziggurat before the "gap" in an LED or any solid state component is a band gap not some kind of vacuum gap. Basically the difference in energy states from being in a bound state with an atom of the lattice structure (in the valance band) and more free to move about the lattice structure (in the conduction band). Such electrons (conduction band) are generally modeled as an electron gas infusing the positively charged lattice structure.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 20th June 2022 at 08:29 AM. Reason: etas & typos
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 08:25 AM   #116
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,346
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
If the rest frame has all values 0 and only -Y electric field exists then there is additional N' magnetic field in the moving frame after transformation from the rest frame to the moving frame.
That is the reason why electrons will start to drift.
Electrons are suppose to move in a 'straight' path in the electric field in the rest frame.
But they are going to drift in the moving frame due to N' magnetic field.
You have that precisely arse about face. The N' magnetic field is what makes the electrons move in a straight, but diagonal, line in the moving frame when the electric field is still entirely in the Y direction.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
This is a contradiction between inertial reference frames.
Wrong. It's the reason why there isn't a contradiction between inertial reference frames.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 11:15 AM   #117
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
If the rest frame has all values 0 and only -Y electric field exists then there is additional N' magnetic field in the moving frame after transformation from the rest frame to the moving frame.
That is the reason why electrons will start to drift.
If.

But again, this isn't how an LED works. The outgoing photon produces whatever impulse it produces REGARDLESS of which way the electron is drifting. The electron's direction of motion isn't relevant. The magnetic field isn't relevant. How do I know? Because you can change them all without changing the photon's impulse.

Quote:
Electrons are suppose to move in a 'straight' path in the electric field in the rest frame.
But they are going to drift in the moving frame due to N' magnetic field.
This is a contradiction between inertial reference frames.
OK, now you're talking about something completely different. This has NOTHING to do with LED flashlights. This is a completely different claim.

But let's actually do the calculations for this completely different scenario anyways. In the rest frame, we have no magnetic field, and an electric field vertical. To use your equations, we need the direction y to be vertical (positive up), sideways is x (positive right), and out of the page z. These equations were written with the assumption that positive v is to the right, but that's the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. You've actually got the frame moving to the left, so keep in mind that v is negative.

So using arbitrary units (they won't end up mattering), we have

X = 0
Y = -1
Z = 0

L = 0
M = 0
N = 0

OK, so let's do the transformations.

X' = X = 0
Y' = gamma*[Y - (v/c)N] = -Beta
Z' = gamma*[Z - (v/c)M] = 0

L' = L = 0
M' = gamma*[M + (v/c)Z] = 0
N' = gamma*[N - (v/c)Y] = gamma*(v/c)

So we've got a magnetic field pointing into the page (remember, v is negative)

Now things are going to get a bit weird, and this is another case where you know enough to set up a problem with some subtleties, but not enough to actually understand them or how they resolve.

We start with an electron at rest in the rest frame. It experiences an upward force from the electric field. In the moving frame, the electric field is the same, so this force is also the same. But now it's moving to the right in a magnetic field, using vxB to get the direction, there's a force from the magnetic field pointing vertically. It will not deflect at all, it's still just being pushed vertically.

Now at this point, you might be asking why the force vertically should be changing. And now it's really getting messy. In relativity, F = dp/dt. But p is NOT equal to mv. p = mu/(1-u2/c2) (I'm using u as the speed of the electron, separate from the speed of the moving frame). Both p and u are vectors. So taking the time derivative of this is messy. There's no reason to expect F to remain reference-frame dependent.

OK, but what if the electron is already moving? Then you've got a vertical component of velocity, when you cross that with the B field you should get a sideways component for the force. Doesn't that make the electron deflect to the side?

No, it doesn't. And this is where things get really weird. If the electron is moving vertically, then in the moving frame its momentum is at an angle. And one of the weird aspects of special relativistic mechanics is that because momentum isn't linear with velocity anymore, the direction of any VELOCITY change doesn't need to be parallel to the direction of MOMENTUM change. Basically, to keep the electron moving to the right at the same velocity as it picks up speed vertically, we actually need to add momentum to the right as well. And how do we get that extra momentum to the right to maintain rightward velocity? From your magnetic field.

This is actually a really interesting aspect of relativistic mechanics that you've stumbled upon. But you don't actually understand any of it, and you aren't equipped to even make any sense of it.

Furthermore, all of this can be set up with just an electron and a capacitor plate. You don't need an LED, you don't need any photons, you don't need any battery. It's a completely different problem which there's no point in needlessly complicating.

Quote:
Pointing out the Hall effect shows this happens in (semi)conductors as well.
This is the physical reason for the flashlight rotation.
No, it isn't.

Yet one more irony to all of this, and another indicator that you really don't know what you're talking about in any of this, is that an LED works by using a p-n junction. And in a p-n junction, the Hall effect will show negative charge carriers on one side of the junction and positive charge carriers on the other. So the Hall voltages will be reversed, which means the electrons will be deflected in different directions on each side of the junction.

None of this works the way you think it does.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 11:17 AM   #118
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You have that precisely arse about face. The N' magnetic field is what makes the electrons move in a straight, but diagonal, line in the moving frame when the electric field is still entirely in the Y direction.
It's actually more complicated than that. Much more complicated (see my above post). But he's still wrong, he still has no idea what he's doing, and he doesn't have the capacity to actually solve any of this.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 06:11 AM   #119
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
OK, SDG, here's a really simple (well, as simple as I can make it) relativistic mechanics problem.

Step 1:
We have mass m starting at rest. Then we push on it really hard in the +x direction, so that it has a momentum of m*c.

Question 1) What is its velocity? (hint: it's not c)

Step 2:
So it's travelling in the +x direction, but now we push on it in the +y direction, giving it the same impulse in that direction. Its momentum is now m*c i + m*c j, where i and j are unit vectors in the +x and +y directions.

Question 2) What is its velocity now? What is the velocity component in the x direction?

Question 3) Did it accelerate parallel to the applied force in step 2?

These calculations are actually quite easy (especially by the standards of relativistic mechanics), but the results are not intuitive. But they can provide some insight into why you are wrong about what's going on in your parallel plate capacitor problem. In order to attain that insight, though, you need to actually open your mind to the possibility that other people might know more than you do, and you might actually learn something from them if you pay attention.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 06:39 AM   #120
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,741
I know SDG won't actually do the calculations, so for those who are curious, here they are.

Question 1:
In relativistic mechanics, p does not equal mv. Instead, p = mv/sqrt[1-(v2/c2)]. So we have
p = mc = mv/sqrt[1-(v2/c2)]
p2 = m2c2 = m2v2/[1-(v2/c2)]
[1-(v2/c2)]c2 = v2
c2 - v2 = v2
c2 = 2v2
v2 = (1/2)*c2
v = [1/sqrt(2)]*c


Question 2:

p = mc (i + j)
p2 = m2c2 (i2 + j2)
= 2m2c2
2m2c2 = m2v2/[1-(v2/c2)]
2*[1-(v2/c2)]c2 = v2
2*c2 - v2 = v2
2*c2 = 3v2
v2 = (2/3)*c2

Now we note that the i and j components of v must be equal (since p and v are parallel), so v
v = vxi + vyj
where vx = vy
v2 = vx2 + vy2 = 2vx2
2vx2 = (2/3)*c2
vx2 = (1/3)*c2
vx = [1/sqrt(3)]*c
v = [1/sqrt(3)]*c i + [1/sqrt(3)]*c j


Question 3:
Our acceleration was NOT parallel to our applied force. We applied a force only along y, but we accelerated both along y and along x. Our mass decreased its velocity in the x direction, even though it increased its total velocity. Even though we did not push along the x direction, the mass experienced acceleration along the x direction.

Which brings us to the punch line. In special relativity, when you apply a force in a direction other than the direction our object is moving, the acceleration WILL NOT be parallel to the applied force.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.