Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 7 Aug 2010 20:05 On Aug 7, 5:02 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:52:29 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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: > >> >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. > > Hahahahha! Poor old diaper...doesn't like it when another of Einstein's sacred > cows is slaughtered. Playing rope-a-dope doesn't slaughter anything. Being a greased pig doesn't kill anything. > > The raidiation is emitted by the field, NOT THE ELECTRON. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 8 Aug 2010 01:09 On Aug 7, 5:02 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Hahahahha! Poor old diaper...doesn't like it when another > of Einstein's sacred cows is slaughtered. > > The raidiation is emitted by the field, NOT THE ELECTRON. Q1: If you pump electrons from an RF source into a whip antenna, what field is radiating? WFT is nothing but a purely ad hoc attempt to explain away the total failure of BaTh to explain synchrotron radiation. Take away the bending magnets of the wiggler or undulator, and watch Ralph invent yet ANOTHER ad hoc explanation to explain away the failure of WFT. Failure piled upon failure piled upon failure... Q2: By the way, ralph, in anticipation of your answer to question Q1... If you connect an RF source to the terminals of a vacuum diode, you'll find that the diode radiates fiercely. Electrons are jumping across from cathode to anode in a VACUUM, ralph. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 8 Aug 2010 18:31 On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 7, 5:02�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> Hahahahha! Poor old diaper...doesn't like it when another >> of Einstein's sacred cows is slaughtered. >> >> The raidiation is emitted by the field, NOT THE ELECTRON. > >Q1: If you pump electrons from an RF source into a whip >antenna, what field is radiating? Poor old Jerry obviously doesn't know anything about basic electricity. What do you think causes the electrons to go up and down the antenna, Jerry? >WFT is nothing but a purely ad hoc attempt to explain away >the total failure of BaTh to explain synchrotron radiation. >Take away the bending magnets of the wiggler or undulator, >and watch Ralph invent yet ANOTHER ad hoc explanation to >explain away the failure of WFT. x-rays aren't emitted by the electron. They are emitted by the magnetic field, which is enormously energised by the acceleration of the electron its is acting on but which is slowed in the process. > >Failure piled upon failure piled upon failure... You wont read about the WFT in any texts..... because I discovered it. >Q2: By the way, henry, in anticipation of your answer to >question Q1... If you connect an RF source to the terminals >of a vacuum diode, you'll find that the diode radiates >fiercely. Electrons are jumping across from cathode to >anode in a VACUUM, henry. I spent over twenty years in vacuum tube electronics. Hey Crank, did you know there are things called transistors now? > >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 8 Aug 2010 18:35 On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 7, 5:05�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Aug 6, 6:14�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >Actually, I understand your theory far, far better than you do, >> >which is why I so easily can poke holes in it. It is your total >> >lack of understanding of even the most basic physics that allows >> >you to cling to such a worthless piece of self-contradictory >> >garbage as BaTh, which has failed EVERY single experimental >> >observation. >> >> Don't rave, Crank. Not one known experiment has refuted the BaTh of light. >> >> >You haven't even fit a -single- variable light curve at multiple >> >wavelengths, and THAT is what you consider your theory's crown >> >and glory. >> >> I have explained before why some light curves differ slightly at different >> wavelengths. They originate from slightly different levels. > >The emanations cannot be from "slightly" different levels. >The phase differences between light curves measured in >differing wave lengths may be on the order of days, for a >long-period Cepheid. What stars do you know that are that >large? What the hell are you talking about? If you want to criticize my theory, please learn what it says first or you will continue to make a big fool of yourself. The majority of cepheids appear to be pulsating stars. Their surface radial velocities oscillate in very similar fashion to those of a star in an elliptical orbit of eccentricity around 0.25 and a yaw angle around 70deg. >No, Henry, your explanations continue to fail, and fail, >and fail... > >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 18:42
On Aug 8, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Aug 7, 5:05 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Aug 6, 6:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> 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. > > >> >Actually, I understand your theory far, far better than you do, > >> >which is why I so easily can poke holes in it. It is your total > >> >lack of understanding of even the most basic physics that allows > >> >you to cling to such a worthless piece of self-contradictory > >> >garbage as BaTh, which has failed EVERY single experimental > >> >observation. > > >> Don't rave, Crank. Not one known experiment has refuted the BaTh of light. > > >> >You haven't even fit a -single- variable light curve at multiple > >> >wavelengths, and THAT is what you consider your theory's crown > >> >and glory. > > >> I have explained before why some light curves differ slightly at different > >> wavelengths. They originate from slightly different levels. > > >The emanations cannot be from "slightly" different levels. > >The phase differences between light curves measured in > >differing wave lengths may be on the order of days, for a > >long-period Cepheid. What stars do you know that are that > >large? > > What the hell are you talking about? If you want to criticize my theory, please > learn what it says first or you will continue to make a big fool of yourself. > > The majority of cepheids appear to be pulsating stars. Their surface radial > velocities oscillate in very similar fashion to those of a star in an > elliptical orbit of eccentricity around 0.25 and a yaw angle around 70deg.. > > >No, Henry, your explanations continue to fail, and fail, > >and fail... > > >Jerry > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light is a wave that flows not a particle. How could a particle be defined inside of that wave? It serves no purpose in the end. The wave can collapses at absorption into energy. Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. Mitch Raemsch |