Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 5 Aug 2010 18:29 On Aug 5, 5:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:24:16 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(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. Why would we consider that? We were talking about synchrotron radiation in a wiggler, not anything to do with a linear accelerator. > 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: No, it's not solely dependent on the particle's acceleration. It happens when there IS an acceleration, but the radiation depends on other quantities besides the acceleration. Like, the direction the particle is going and its charge. > > 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 18:49 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 5, 5:10�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:24:16 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(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. > >Why would we consider that? We were talking about synchrotron >radiation in a wiggler, not anything to do with a linear accelerator. > >> 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: > >No, it's not solely dependent on the particle's acceleration. It >happens when there IS an acceleration, but the radiation depends on >other quantities besides the acceleration. Like, the direction the >particle is going and its charge. The particle has NO direction in its own frame. If you were right, radiation should be emitted equally in all directions. .hence my previous question about 'inertial movement...' So I am right. It is dependent solely on the particle's acceleration. >> 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. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Darwin123 on 5 Aug 2010 19:33 On Aug 5, 5:40 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0...(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> > they are oscillating particles. > > A 'wave' is a graphical concept devised by humans. > Cathode ray tubes and cyclotron accelerators emit xrays that diffract from both crystals and artificial multilayer materials. Diffraction is not a "graphical concept devised by humans." Diffraction is a physical phenomenon observed by humans. Waves are a graphical concept used to describe physical things that diffract. Your laughter does not describe, explain or acknowledge the fact of diffraction. Your model of an "oscillating particle" does not describe, explain or acknowledge the fact of diffraction. Neither your sophistry nor Androcles' sophistry explains diffraction. The same goes for the photoelectric effect. Neither your model nor Androcles model describes the photoelectric effect. You guys don't know either diffraction nor the photoelectric effect. You have laughter, insults and ignorance. Maybe Androcles can teach you how to wrap wire around a stick. Neither of you have any educational background in optics or electricity. You are a stupid manager and he is a stupid technician. You two should form a company. Maybe Kent Hovind could use some flunkies, when he gets out. The three of you would make make a nice team.
From: Jerry on 5 Aug 2010 19:41 On Aug 5, 5:15 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 04:15:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. AHAH! You AGREE!!!!!! Since this totally contrary to observation, reverse bubble theory is demonstrably dead. > 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
From: Jerry on 5 Aug 2010 19:47
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. It is interesting to see how fearful you are of answering a very simple question. I believe that you suspect that I am trying to trick you. > Can you provide a physical explanation for the right hand rule or action at a > distance? There must be one you know. Jerry |