Radiation pressure is p=<ExB>/c vector: there is focus on positive, but can be also negative: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?q=negative+radiation+pressure , https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?q=optical+pulling

If positive radiation pressure gives positive signal in radiotelescopes, shouldn't negative give negative?

They clearly see also large regions of negative signal in radio flux maps, e.g. below from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02695

What objects could generate negative radiation pressure?

E.g. if white hole would generate positive, shouldn't black holes generate negative?

2 hours ago, Duda Jarek said:

Radiation pressure is p=<ExB>/c vector: there is focus on positive, but can be also negative: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?q=negative+radiation+pressure , https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?q=optical+pulling

If positive radiation pressure gives positive signal in radiotelescopes, shouldn't negative give negative?

They clearly see also large regions of negative signal in radio flux maps, e.g. below from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02695

What objects could generate negative radiation pressure?

E.g. if white hole would generate positive, shouldn't black holes generate negative?

What would a -ve signal from a telescope look like? Radiation intensity is the square of radiation amplitude, isn't it? How can you have a real -ve square?

Positive signal means telescope absorbs energy from source, so seems negative means telescope emits energy?

Like for wave behind marine propeller: carrying energy, momentum, and angular momentum - could excite resonator, but reversing rotation it could cause its deexcitation:

There is also mechanical analog - coupled oscillators periodically exchange energy like Rabi cycles, what would be stopped without one acting as absorber. In astronomy such absorber might be e.g. black hole, emitter in telescope.

Anyway, they clearly see negative signals e.g. in this Fig. 1 from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e93/pdf , usually saying this is just noise ... but these are huge regions of similar luminosity but reversed sign - maybe hypothesis of actually being positive could be verified?

Or if negativity would remain, we should try to finally understand it ...

Edited 47 minutes ago47 min by Duda Jarek

41 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Positive signal means telescope absorbs energy from source, so seems negative means telescope emits energy?

Like for wave behind marine propeller: carrying energy, momentum, and angular momentum - could excite resonator, but reversing rotation it could cause its deexcitation:

There is also mechanical analog - coupled oscillators periodically exchange energy like Rabi cycles, what would be stopped without one acting as absorber. In astronomy such absorber might be e.g. black hole, emitter in telescope.

Anyway, they clearly see negative signals e.g. in this Fig. 1 from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e93/pdf , usually saying this is just noise ... but these are huge regions of similar luminosity but reversed sign - maybe hypothesis of actually being positive could be verified?

Or if negativity would remain, we should try to finally understand it ...

That's stupid. There is no "signal" from a telescope to tell you it is emitting energy.

And I'm reporting this as it looks like yet another thinly disguised re-run of your previous threads.