Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 4 Aug 2010 21:17 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(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'. Curiously enough, nobody but you thinks these 'reverse bubbles' exist. [...]
From: eric gisse on 4 Aug 2010 21:19 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > The updated Wilson Field Theory states that when a charge is accelerated, > it reacts back on the applied field causing THAT FIELD to emit an EM > quantum. The charge's acceleration vector and its mass determine the > direction and amount of energy radiated. > > The x-rays do not come from the electron at all but from the field. > >>What a pathetic ignorant idiot! :-) > > Far ahead of you, I'm sure. > >>"Hahahahha!" repeated. > > Hahahahaha! Prove the WFT is wrong. I win again. It is hard to pin down a theory that has no mathematical basis and makes no testable predictions. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 5 Aug 2010 07:15 On Aug 4, 5:02 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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. It is, of course, trivial to disprove the "reverse bubble" concept. The size of the reverse bubble is dependent on charge and velocity. Therefore, to accelerate a proton to 99.99999% of the speed of light must take virtually the same energy as it would take to accerate an electron to the same velocity. In reality, of course, it takes over 1800 times as much energy to accelerate the proton to 99.99999% of the speed of light as it does the electron. Furthermore, the resistence offered by the reverse bubble must be dissipative. A high speed electron must continuously radiate. This again is totally contrary to fact. Jerry
From: Androcles on 5 Aug 2010 07:39 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:cce9b5ef-f64f-4604-9673-7b827155e63c(a)f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 4, 5:02 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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. It is, of course, trivial to disprove the "reverse bubble" concept. ===================================== "These effects are regularly seen" -- Tom&Jeery.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 5 Aug 2010 07:41
On 04.08.2010 23:54, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:28:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<something(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 03.08.2010 22:53, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(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<larryharson(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? If it is, why should anything it >>> emits have a 'preferred direction'? >> >> Ralph, Ralph, Ralph :-) >> Fully qualified physicist, eh? :-) >> Doctor of science, eh? :-) >> >> Why would an inertial charged particle emit anything at all? >> >> You have now demonstrated: >> - That you don't know what synchrotron radiation is. >> - That you don't know that synchrotron radiation is >> emitted in a narrow beam. >> - That you don't know what an undulator (or wiggler) is. >> - That you don't know that the X-rays in an undulator >> are emitted in a narrow beam. >> - That you don't know why the X-rays in an undulator >> are emitted in a narrow beam. >> - That you don't know that the X-radiation from >> an undulator is monochromatic (possibly with harmonics). >> - That you don't know why the X-radiation from >> an undulator is monochromatic (possibly with harmonics). >> - That you have no clue of what we are talking about. >> >> Your ignorance has ceased to amaze, but it is still amusing. >> >> "Hahahahha!" indeed. >> >> Ralph Rabbidge wrote: >> "The X-rays are emitted when the electrons interact with occasional >> gas molecules.....whose v>>0 wrt the apparatus frame." > > Not exactly > > The updated Wilson Field Theory states that when a charge is accelerated, it > reacts back on the applied field causing THAT FIELD to emit an EM quantum. The > charge's acceleration vector and its mass determine the direction and amount of > energy radiated. > > The x-rays do not come from the electron at all but from the field. OK, let's use this theory on a concrete example. In a synchrotron, the particles are accelerated in RF-cavities and guided around the circuit by bending magnets. When the particle beam is bent by the magnets, synchrotron radiation is emitted. Your claim is that the energy in this radiation comes from the magnetic field in the bending magnets, and not from the particles. That means that you claim that the particles do not loose kinetic energy in the bends. So the questions are: If the energy in the synchrotron radiation comes from the magnetic field in the bending magnets and not from the particles, where does the energy put into the RF-cavities go when the accelerator is in steady state? Why is it an upper limit for the energy in the particle beam when the particles keep gaining kinetic energy in the RF-cavities, and don't loose kinetic energy anywhere? The energy in the synchrotron radiation is huge in a large synchrotron. Why don't we have to put an equal amount of energy into the bending magnets? Where does the energy lost in the bending magnets come from? But when the accelerator is in steady state, the particles gain kinetic energy in the RF-cavities, and loose the same amount of kinetic energy in the bends. (Thus steady state.) I look forward to see how the re-updated Wilson Field Theory explains this. :-) -- Paul, having fun http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |