Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/22/2024 01:03 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:30:39 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>

Bottom line:
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.

The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.

Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.

Its temperature will not be very high, though-

Now smile, asshole.

:-D

It is not a BB radiation source!

You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It doesn't remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.

There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy outside it. You better think again about it.

You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.

Now, start thinking in my NEXT IDEA:

Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.

What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats permanently.

I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.

It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear energy crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.

Ask ChatGPT:

any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?

The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the above lines.

Keep smiling, asshole.

In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".

Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.

Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.

This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.

And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....

ohhh, puleeassee..'infinity might be in a world of 'a natural unit
...number', but infinity is a not....physical.


It doesn't exist in the physical world...only exist in the ...mind.



In an imaginary mind a 'physical infinity' would be like a...

puzzel
where
the edge
of the
puzzel
has no edge
so you
are
forever
adding
pieces
of
the
puzzel
forever
to
no
ends.


It ain't happening.


wake up
you're dreaming.




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)