Actually, that would be Mike Speciner <ms@alum.mit.edu> wrote: "IMHO, attractive pressure from EM radiation would violate conservation of energy and momentum, while reverse Doppler shift would violate relativity. Am I confused, or should Science News be embarassed?" (My apologies for not including enough attribution) Bill C. -----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces+cordwell=sandia.gov@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:math-fun-bounces+cordwell=sandia.gov@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of franktaw@netscape.net Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 2:13 PM To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [math-fun] Has someone repealed the laws of physics? After reading the article, I agree with Bill. Such materials would still be repelled by EM radiation. Less, perhaps, than some other materials, at least in some cases. But the basic range for this repulsion is from a maximum for a perfect mirror, to zero for a perfectly transparent object. These materials would fall into that range. The reverse Doppler shift doesn't make any sense to me at all. Franklin T. Adams-Watters --- "Cordwell, William R" <wrcordw@sandia.gov> wrote:
IMHO, attractive pressure from EM radiation would violate conservation of energy and momentum, while reverse Doppler shift would violate relativity. Am I confused, or should Science News be embarassed?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun