Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 6 Aug 2010 18:47 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:57:22 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 5, 5:49�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(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: >> >> 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. > >An accelerating particle is not at rest in any inertial 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. > >No, it doesn't. >You could google "angular dependence synchrotron radiation" BEFORE >just making something up in your head. You're prone to too many >mistakes relying on your own head. My use of the word 'dependent' did not imply that the dependence was a simple one. >> >> 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: PD on 6 Aug 2010 18:52 On Aug 6, 5:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:57:22 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Aug 5, 5:49 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(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: > >> >> 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. > > >An accelerating particle is not at rest in any inertial 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. > > >No, it doesn't. > >You could google "angular dependence synchrotron radiation" BEFORE > >just making something up in your head. You're prone to too many > >mistakes relying on your own head. > > My use of the word 'dependent' did not imply that the dependence was a simple > one. And perhaps "solely" doesn't imply that it is the sole dependent variable. You goofball. Henri, you amuse yourself by playing semantic rope-a-dope. You know and everyone else knows that you're a pig, not a physicist. But you figure as long as you're a pig, you might as well be a slippery pig, and you rather enjoy seeing how many physicists will take the time to try to pin down a slippery pig. I for one do it only long enough to affirm that you are in fact a greased pig. > > >> >> 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 6 Aug 2010 19:13 On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:31:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <something(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 06.08.2010 00:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> 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: >>>>>> 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. > >Good grief, Henry. > >You asked if the charged particle that is emitting synchrotron radiation >was inertial. > >Either YOU weren't thinking, or you don't know >that inertial particles don't radiate. This is obviosly too hard for you. My point was that the direction of radiation must be acceleration and not velocity dependent BECAUSE the particles are NOT inertial. >It probably was the former, so why don't you admit that >in stead of pretending that your question was a sensible one. >>>> 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. > >In the particle's frame of reference, radiation _is_ emitted >in all directions, but not equally intense in all directions. >(If we are talking about a single photon, replace 'intensity > in a direction' with 'probability of emission in a direction'). > >In the frame of reference of the particle, let's call it the S' frame, >there is a moving magnetic field. So the velocity vector is still >relevant, but here it is the velocity of the B field. >The moving magnetic field is perpendicular to the velocity. >In the S' frame only an electric field can accelerate the particle. >When we transform the moving magnetic field to the S' frame, >the electric field is E' = -v*gamma*B, and the direction is >perpendicular to the B field and the velocity. >So the acceleration is perpendicular to same. > >The radiation intensity distribution is: > I(phi') = Io*cos^2(phi') > where phi' is the angle from the velocity vector. > >Note that for phi' = +/- pi/4, we get > I = Io/2, the intensity is half at these angles. > This is often called the beam width. > >So it will radiate almost in all directions, but mostly >in both directions along the velocity vector, and nothing >perpendicular to it. .....presumably because the acceleration component is zero in that direction. >The radiation diagram will be something like this: >(should be two circles) > . . > * * * * > * * * * > ----*-----------C-----------*-> v > * * * * > * * * * > * * > >But we are observing the radiation in the lab frame S, >where the particle is moving at the speed v. > >The intensity at the angle phi = 0 (in the forward direction) >will be changed by the square of the Doppler effect: > I(0) = Io*(1+v/c)/(1-v/c) >equivalently will the intensity in the opposite direction be: > I(pi) = Io*(1-v/c)/(1+v/c) > >(If you think in photons will the energy of each photon > be Doppler shifted, and the frequency of arrival > of photons will also be Doppler shifted, thus the square.) > >In addition to this effect will we have aberration: > cos(phi) = (cos(phi')+ v/c)/(1 + (v/c)cos(phi')) > >A beam (or photon) in an off axis direction in S' >will be deflected towards the velocity vector in S. > >It can be shown that the combined effect will lead >to a beam width (half intensity) ~= 1/gamma (radians) >in the forward direction. > >For high gammas will we have a very narrow beam >along the velocity vector and very little in the backwards >direction. > >Note that this is a prediction of SR, and measurements >are in accordance with the prediction. > >Synchrotron radiation is yet another confirmation of SR. hahahhhaha! HAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHA! >> So I am right. It is dependent solely on the particle's acceleration. > >No. Observations in the lab frame depend >strongly on the particle's velocity in that frame. I was implying that the angular distribution was dependent on acceleration. It is logical according to the WFT that the intensity of radiation might include a relative velocity term (wrt the field) as well as acceleration. >>>> Q2) What does that say about the direction of radiation in a linear vs a >>>> circular accelerator? > >In any accelerator will we loose a little energy as radiation >in the RF-cavities due to the acceleration of the particles. >But most of the energy goes into kinetic energy of the particles >since the acceleration is along the velocity. That is correct. >But the acceleration of the particles in the bends is much higher >than it is in the RF-cavities, and the radiation is _vastly_ more >intense. And since the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity, >it doesn't add to the kinetic energy of the particles. The radiation >energy is taken from the kinetic energy of the particles, so they >loose kinetic energy. Not according to WFT. They lose energy by partly neutralising the surrounding applied field, which subsequently emits radiation.. >In its rest frame, the particle "sees" an electric field E = v*gamma*B. >When v ~= c, gamma is thousands and B is very high, that's >a gigantic electric accelerating field! ....requrired because of the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble that buids up around the particle and reduces the applied field. >That's why the next generation of high energy accelerators probably >will be several km long linear accelerators. If they design it according to relativistic physics it will automatically include the WFT because the maths are the same. The Bubble equation includes a gamma term. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 6 Aug 2010 19:14 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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!!!!!! You don;t even understand my theory...so you are only making a fool of yourself. >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 Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 6 Aug 2010 19:16
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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: >> >> >> >> >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. YOU should know all about being tricked...Einstein tricked YOU well and truly.... >> Can you provide a physical explanation for the right hand rule or action at a >> distance? There must be one you know. can you? >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |