Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Aug 2010 18:08 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 3, 3:59�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> The trouble with you blokes is that you think that because fields cannot be >> seen or felt, they have no physical structures. >> >> I say the stuff fields are made of emits no EM and passes straight through >> ordinary matter, which after all is 99.99999999999% empty space. > >A most interesting statement. > >Tell me... > >Assume a perfectly machined, circular disk magnet with a uniform >magnetic field lined up along the disk axis. > >I claim that I set the disk spinning along its axis on perfectly >machined, noiseless, vibrationless bearings inside an opaque box >in vacuum. > >Without being allowed to move, touch, or x-ray the box (all >similar such technologies are also prohibited) please explain to >me how, from measurements of the external magnetic flux or other >such electrical or magnetic measurements, you may determine >whether the disk is in fact spinning. Good question...tell me your answer...and why it is relevant here.... >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: PD on 4 Aug 2010 18:24 On Aug 4, 4:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Aug 3, 3:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> > >> wrote: > > >> >On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead<larryhar...(a)softhome.net> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >>> On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> > >> >>> A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons > >> >>> travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order > >> >>> fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the > >> >>> electrons, don't you think? > > >> >> Pathetic > > >> >> You seem to be suggesting that the x-rays have a preferred direction. > > >> >How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can > >> >be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted > >> >in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged > >> >particle? > > >> >Pathetic indeed. > > >> Hahahahha! > > >> Is that charged particle moving inertially? > > >No. You may want to look up what the source of synchrotron radiation > >is. It's from an accelerated charge. > > I didn't claim it was moving inertially you dope. I asked YOU a question. So why would you ask a non sequitur question about inertially moving charges in the context of synchrotron radiation? You should KNOW whether the charge is moving inertially in synchrotron radiation. And if you don't know, you should at least have the drive to look it up. > > >> If it is, why should anything it > >> emits have a 'preferred direction'? > > >> Henry Wilson... > > >> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 4 Aug 2010 20:00 On Aug 4, 5:08 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Aug 3, 3:59 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> The trouble with you blokes is that you think that because fields cannot be > >> seen or felt, they have no physical structures. > > >> I say the stuff fields are made of emits no EM and passes straight through > >> ordinary matter, which after all is 99.99999999999% empty space. > > >A most interesting statement. > > >Tell me... > > >Assume a perfectly machined, circular disk magnet with a uniform > >magnetic field lined up along the disk axis. > > >I claim that I set the disk spinning along its axis on perfectly > >machined, noiseless, vibrationless bearings inside an opaque box > >in vacuum. > > >Without being allowed to move, touch, or x-ray the box (all > >similar such technologies are also prohibited) please explain to > >me how, from measurements of the external magnetic flux or other > >such electrical or magnetic measurements, you may determine > >whether the disk is in fact spinning. > > Good question...tell me your answer...and why it is relevant here.... Nope. YOU need to answer. As to why it is relevant, you stated "The trouble with you blokes is that you think that because fields cannot be seen or felt, they have no physical structures. I say the stuff fields are made of emits no EM and passes straight through ordinary matter, which after all is 99.99999999999% empty space." The above reveals a lot about what you understand about fields. Jerry
From: Jerry on 4 Aug 2010 20:19 On Aug 4, 5:02 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >On Aug 3, 3:59 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> The Wilson model says that when a charge is accelerated, its affest on the > >> applied field causes THAT FIELD to release a quantim of energy. > > >It is easy to demonstrate that the Wilson "model" is false. > > >1) The more a charge distorts the applied field, the more the > > field should radiate. > >2) Heavier objects should shove around any applied fields more > > than lighter objects do. > > Rubbish. It is the charge's movement that causes the 'reverse bubble'. > An ionised heavy object will not accelerate as much as an equally charged > lighter one. Oh, so radiation -IS- the result of charge acceleration. You really have to learn to make up your mind... > >3) Protons are heavier than electrons. > >4) Therefore, WFT predicts that a beam of protons passing through > > an undulator at 99.99999% of the light should generate more > > synchrotron radiation than a beam of electrons passing through > > the undulator at the same speed. > > >This being -completely- contrary to fact, WFT is falsified. > > Your logic is wrong. > I win again. Nope. You contradicted yourself. You lose BIG TIME. Jerry
From: Darwin123 on 4 Aug 2010 20:59
On Aug 4, 5:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Jul 29, 7:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message > > >>news:ae8ec65f-621e-42c0-b79a-096a3660f579(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Jul 29, 3:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> > ======================================================= > > >> > Let k = 0, i.e. photons are being emitted at c > >> > E----------------------------F > >> > *| > >> > Since the electrons are traveling at 0.9999997c, the difference > >> > between front and rear of the 1c X-ray beam = 9 um > >> > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 9 um/c = 40 fs > > >> > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> Thanks for the explcation. > >> ====================== > >> Explcation? > >> Hmm... Why do those electrons wait until they hit something > >> stationary before they emit the x-rays? > > Rays are the noncommittal word between waves and photons. If > >someone says the electron emits electromagnetic waves, he is saying > >that the electron is emitting electromagnetic energy in certain > >directions. We can avoid some of the usual name calling if we restrict > >discussion to "electromagnetic rays." > > hahahahaha! > Accelerating charges cause quantum particles to be emitted in a direction that > is a function of the acceleration. There are no 'waves' involved in one > particle. <LOL> Xrays generated by these electrons show intereference effects. Cathode ray tubes emit xrays that diffract from both crystals and artificial multilayer materials. Cyclotron accelerators emit xrays that diffract from both crystals and multilayer particles. The are "quantum particles" emitted by accelerating electrons sometimes display wave properties. > > > According to classical electrodynamics, electric charges emit > >electromagnetic rays when they accelerate. > > It isn't that the electrons emit xrays when they "hit something". > >As moving electrons come closer to the electrons in the material, they > >slow down. The accelerate in a direction opposite their motion. It is > >because of the acceleration that the electrons emit light rays, or > >radio waves. > > the accelerating electron causes the FILD to emit an x-ray particle. Okay. You don't specify what "the field" is or where it is. If you like, it could be a field of electrons. Or a field of grass. > > > It isn't the "hitting a stationary object" per se that causes the > >electrons to emit electromagnetic rays. Anything that causes the > >electrons to change velocity (speed or direction) causes the electron > >to emit electromagnetic energy. > > So why doesn't the electron change when the x-ray is emitted? As the electron approaches the atom, the atom moves. The metal "hit" by the electrons heat up. > |