- #1
sanman
- 737
- 24
Hi,
I wanted to discuss the refutation provided in this article below, because it is the most widely cited refutation in connection with what it's trying to refute:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
It may be that the idea that Costella is trying to refute is indeed false, but I'm concerned that Costella is trying to base his refutation on an oversimplification. It may indeed be that there is a legitimate case for making a refutation, but I'm not sure that Costella's is it.
In my opinion Costella tries to discuss photons as if they were basketballs rather than quantum objects subject to quantum level effects. We know that there are many differences between basketballs and photons, as well as differences in their behaviors.
If I try to accelerate a basketball in a field, then it will accelerate in a simple Newtonian way.
Anything else would be considered a conservation violation.
If I try to accelerate a photon the same way, instead of it accelerating it will simply shift its frequency (energy level). By the standards of macroscopic Newtonian objects, that could be called a "conservation violation" too. But photons can do that, because they aren't macroscopic classical Newtonian objects. We know they always travel at the same speed through ordinary space, not changing their velocity but only changing their frequency (energy) in response to other influences.
Photons have no rest mass, so what Newtonian momentum do they have to conserve? They change energy level (ie. frequency), and that's not something you can claim to be a closed property inside a superconductive cavity. If the system is not closed with respect to that property, then you can't claim that property must be conserved.
It is claimed that a QuantumElectroDynamic cavity can be tailored to have an asymmetric shape, so that the opposite sides of it will each have different amounts of quantum interaction with the photons. It is being claimed that this difference is what allows the photon to exchange more momentum in hitting one side of the cavity than in hitting the other, thus resulting in net movement. This lopsided behavior is claimed to be due to quantum effects, but Costella's refutation doesn't bother to talk about quantum level effects, and instead offers a refutation against basketballs and their Newtonian behavior.
So if there is a case to be made in refuting the claim that Costella is trying to invalidate, is Costella's Newtonian basketball model really the best way to do it? Is it really appropriate to apply a Newtonian analogy to a debate about photons?
I'd instead be interested in hearing an explanation of whether quantum level interactions have to be symmetrical in an asymmetrical QED cavity.
Can someone provide it, please?
I wanted to discuss the refutation provided in this article below, because it is the most widely cited refutation in connection with what it's trying to refute:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
It may be that the idea that Costella is trying to refute is indeed false, but I'm concerned that Costella is trying to base his refutation on an oversimplification. It may indeed be that there is a legitimate case for making a refutation, but I'm not sure that Costella's is it.
In my opinion Costella tries to discuss photons as if they were basketballs rather than quantum objects subject to quantum level effects. We know that there are many differences between basketballs and photons, as well as differences in their behaviors.
If I try to accelerate a basketball in a field, then it will accelerate in a simple Newtonian way.
Anything else would be considered a conservation violation.
If I try to accelerate a photon the same way, instead of it accelerating it will simply shift its frequency (energy level). By the standards of macroscopic Newtonian objects, that could be called a "conservation violation" too. But photons can do that, because they aren't macroscopic classical Newtonian objects. We know they always travel at the same speed through ordinary space, not changing their velocity but only changing their frequency (energy) in response to other influences.
Photons have no rest mass, so what Newtonian momentum do they have to conserve? They change energy level (ie. frequency), and that's not something you can claim to be a closed property inside a superconductive cavity. If the system is not closed with respect to that property, then you can't claim that property must be conserved.
It is claimed that a QuantumElectroDynamic cavity can be tailored to have an asymmetric shape, so that the opposite sides of it will each have different amounts of quantum interaction with the photons. It is being claimed that this difference is what allows the photon to exchange more momentum in hitting one side of the cavity than in hitting the other, thus resulting in net movement. This lopsided behavior is claimed to be due to quantum effects, but Costella's refutation doesn't bother to talk about quantum level effects, and instead offers a refutation against basketballs and their Newtonian behavior.
So if there is a case to be made in refuting the claim that Costella is trying to invalidate, is Costella's Newtonian basketball model really the best way to do it? Is it really appropriate to apply a Newtonian analogy to a debate about photons?
I'd instead be interested in hearing an explanation of whether quantum level interactions have to be symmetrical in an asymmetrical QED cavity.
Can someone provide it, please?
Last edited by a moderator: