Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Aug 2010 17:40 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. they are oscillating particles. A 'wave' is a graphical concept devised by humans. >> > � � �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. >> Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Aug 2010 18:02 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:41:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <something(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >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: >>> "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. That does not follow at all. The particles don't lose any of their mass, charge or any other properties when radiation is produced....so obviously it doesn't originate from THEM. They can still lose kinetic energy due to interaction with the magnetic field. >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? Don't rave. The particles simply slow down without radiating. So what? They speed up again in the electric field. You should ask why, according to the WFT, doesn't this electrostatic ACCELERATION also cause synchrotron radiation? It probably does...but the gaps are too small for it to be noticed. > 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? I think you should consider a few possibillities before you ask silly questions like this. From the energy point of view, it makes no difference whether the radiation originates from the field or the particle. ....but it makes a huge difference to the radiation's velocity. > 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.) good > >I look forward to see how the re-updated Wilson Field Theory >explains this. :-) I'm glad to see you are trying to learn something new. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Aug 2010 18:10 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:24:16 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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> >> >> 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. Like Paul, you are incapable of thinking before you speak. Consider a linear accelerator in which a charge is being slowly accelerated. It is obviously not inertial and it appears to intermittently emit an EM quantum. Q1) How, when and why does it emit an EM quantum? That process is dependent solely on the particle's acceleration so: Q2) What does that say about the direction of radiation in a linear vs a circular accelerator? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Aug 2010 18:15 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 04:15:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Wrong again. The BUBBLE radiates...not the charge. A large amount of energy is required to maintain the bubble since it is being continuously dissipated. A proton takes 1800 times as long to accelerate to the same speed as an electron. Therefore 1800 times as much energy is required. > >Jerry > Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 5 Aug 2010 18:18
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Nobody knows anything about the physical structure of fields. All physics knows is the maths of how they operate. Can you provide a physical explanation for the right hand rule or action at a distance? There must be one you know. >Jerry > Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |