[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I was making the point that maths problems don't have to obey the laws of physics.

That's the point of this thread.

[Bored chemist]

It implies that the mirror has infinite mass

That's exactly wrong.

[Bored chemist]

That's a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.


Anyway, here's what I said about it the last time the subject came up.

The force which the photons exert does not necessarily mean there is  transfer of energy. Energy is transferred when the force moves through a distance
In order to be perfectly reflective the walls have to be infinitely massive (this causes other problems).

However, there's another way to do it.
You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
The energy (on average) imparted to the light, rigid mirror will be Boltzmann's constant times 3 times the temperature. (That's the same energy as would be carried by an electron or proton at that temperature.)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.

It seems like you haven't learned about Galileo.

[Bored chemist]

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.

It seems like you haven't learned about Galileo.

Galileo did a thought experiment and overturned the views of Aristotle.
And then, because he was trying to explain it to people who were unaccustomed to actually thinking, he did the practical experiment.
So what?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.

It seems like you haven't learned about Galileo.

Galileo did a thought experiment and overturned the views of Aristotle.
And then, because he was trying to explain it to people who were unaccustomed to actually thinking, he did the practical experiment.
So what?

Authorities can still make mistakes. Blindly following them is a logical fallacy.

[Bored chemist]

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.

It seems like you haven't learned about Galileo.

Galileo did a thought experiment and overturned the views of Aristotle.
And then, because he was trying to explain it to people who were unaccustomed to actually thinking, he did the practical experiment.
So what?

Authorities can still make mistakes. Blindly following them is a logical fallacy.

Ignoring them for no reason is also foolhardy.

However, if you bounce photons round inside a circular mirror, you end up scrambling their energies.

[Origin]

Authorities can still make mistakes. Blindly following them is a logical fallacy.

It is not a logical fallacy to cite an expert.  If I have a spot on my skin and I tell someone it's cancer and they disagree, it is not an appeal to authority if I say my doctor told me it is cancer.  Citing a politician's opinion on global warming is an appeal to authority because they aren't experts in climate.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is not a logical fallacy to cite an expert.

I didn't say it was. But here's what is.

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.

More over, they often disagree and contradict one another. In this case, at least one of them must be false. Selecting which one to accept should be based on their supporting evidence.

[Origin]

More over, they often disagree and contradict one another. At least one of them must be false. Selecting which one to accept should be based on their supporting evidence.

This is just another example of you enjoying the feeling of confusion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

However, if you bounce photons round inside a circular mirror, you end up scrambling their energies.

In my example with 10° incoming angle, the light will only be reflected 8 times before coming out of the circle through the opening. The energy loss as heat can be minimized. It's not a good reason to dismiss the problem altogether.

[Bored chemist]

, they often disagree and contradict one another.

Where did you see that ?

In order for your point to be valid, you have to show that it happened "often".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

, they often disagree and contradict one another.

Where did you see that ?

In order for your point to be valid, you have to show that it happened "often".

Read history of scientific progress.
If you are in the business of scientific breakthroughs, you'll have to argue a lot with your research colleagues on details of the experiments.

[Bored chemist]

However, if you bounce photons round inside a circular mirror, you end up scrambling their energies.

In my example with 10° incoming angle, the light will only be reflected 8 times before coming out of the circle through the opening. The energy loss as heat can be minimized. It's not a good reason to dismiss the problem altogether.

What I was dismissing was this

Your last sentence above is especially suspicious.

It isn't "suspicious", it's true.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video shows how to calculate the length of the light ray inside a circle.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video shows how to calculate area of the shape formed by the light ray inside a circle.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video shows how to deal with negative incoming angle.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video explains about the formation of virtual reflection pattern.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now here comes the harder part : incomplete reflection.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

First position method to solve incomplete reflection problem.