Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 8 Aug 2010 18:57 On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:42:05 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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: >> >> 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. The only prize Einstein got was that for being the world's greatest hoaxer. >Mitch Raemsch Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 8 Aug 2010 19:54 On 07.08.2010 00:35, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:06:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<something(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 06.08.2010 00:02, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:41:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<something(a)somewhere.no> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Henry, Henry, V. :-) >> You are struggling now, aren't you? >> If the particles loose kinetic energy without radiating, >> where does the energy go? > > Gawd! This is elementary physics. Where does the energy go when a rock falls > into water? > >> Come on, Henry. >> You are claiming that the re-updated Wilson Field Theory >> state that charged particles, like electrons, >> don't emit photons when they loose energy. > > Hahahahhaha! Of course they don't. As with the aforementioned rock, they > energise the field and IT emits the radiation ....at c wrt the field > electrodes.... > > Obvious isn't it? I have noticed that whenever Ralph Rabbidge writes "Hahahahhaha!", an exceptionally silly statement follows. :-) Ralph Rabbidge: When a charged particle is accelerated, it doesn't radiate. It transfer energy to the accelerating field. :-) > >> Maybe you will have to re-update >> the re-updated Wilson Field Theory? :-) > > Maybe you will need a brain transplant....get one from a chimp... > >>>> 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. >> >> So the energy conservation law is violated. > > > Hahahhaha! No Paul, This is pretty elementary. The energy goes into the > field....something like magnetic damping. "Hahahhaha!" - and what usually follows - again! :-) > >> Maybe the re-re-updated Wilson Field Theory state >> that energy isn't conserved? :-) > > hahahhahha! my theory involves quite elementary physics. i'm surprised you are > having difficulty understanding it. And again! :-) >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Why should I ask when you have given the answer? >> According to the WFT is synchrotron radiation emitted when >> charged particles gain kinetic energy in an electric field. > > Well I would be inclined to say that it does not So according to WFT, it probably does, but you are inclined to say it doesn't. Not very precise, this theory of yours, is it? :-) > because all the applied energy > goes into the particle's increased KE. Does it? :-) Forgotten your "reverse field bubble", have you? :-) > This is a very different situation from > that whereby a charge is deflected by a magnetic field and slowed in the > process...(why is it slowed?) Conservation of momentum and energy. > However even when a charge is accelerated by a field, there should be a reverse > reaction ON that field ...and that could cause radiation emission FROM THE > FIELD ITSELF. > >> BTW, Henry. >> Do you know why the next generation high energy accelerators >> (after LHC) probably will be linear accelerators? >> Hint: Synchrotron radiation. >> (They don't use the WFT in the design. :-) ) > > Of course they do...but they are too ignorant to realise the fact. ...The > design is the same. ..... This makes it obvious that you KNOW you are raving. Have you been trolling all these years, Ralph? Have you all the time known that you are babbling incoherent nonsense just to see if anyone would bite? > >>>> 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. >> >> You didn't even understand the question, did you? >> It was: >> Where does the energy radiated from the bending >> magnetic field come from? > > From the slowing of the particles, of course. That tends to REDUCE the field > strength. > >> It is NOT fed into the magnets. > > ...maybe some Norwegian physics teachers should be fed to those big white hairy > things up north... > >>>> 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 >> >> See? > > Of course I can see something as elemetary as that.. > >> The radiated energy is carried from the RF-cavities to >> the bends as kinetic energy in the particles. >> The radiated energy is NOT fed into the bending magnetic >> field, but into the RF-cavities. > > The radiated energy comes from the decelerating particles' reaction on the > applied magnetic field. It originates in the FIELD not the particles. > >>>> 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. >> >> But you have explained nothing yet. > > Paul, why don't you simply acknowledge the fact that I have made the greatest > physics discovery since the lever? > >> To repeat the probably still unanswered questions: >> >> If the synchrotron radiation is emitted from the magnetic >> bending field, from where does the radiated energy come? >> It is not fed into the bending magnets. >> >> If the particles loose kinetic energy without radiating, >> where does the lost energy go? > > The answers are trivial and are given above... Quite. Ralph Rabbidge invents a new law of nature for every phenomenon he must explain. When explaining synchrotron radiation, he has forgotten that according to him, the kinetic energy of the charged particle is but 0.5mv^2. The rest of its energy is stored in his "reverse field bubble". But since you now has made it clear that you know you are raving, there is no point in continuing the discussion. -- Paul, bored http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Jerry on 8 Aug 2010 21:34 On Aug 8, 5:35 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: > >> >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.. How large does that imply the Cepheid is if it has a period of, say, two months and an amplitude of 0.7 magnitudes? What is the difference in diameters between the Cepheid at max versus the Cepheid at min? How do measurements of Doppler compare with BaTh predictions? If this two month Cepheid has a one-week phase difference between the peaks of the B band versus the K band, how much separation exists between layers? What do the laws governing black body radiation say about the ability to see that deeply beneath the surface of a glowing gas? You have never dared to answer these questions in quantitative fashion. The only times that you attempted to answer in qualitative fashion, you faked your diagrams, and got caught each time. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 9 Aug 2010 18:05 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:54:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 07.08.2010 00:35, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:06:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<something(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >>> On 06.08.2010 00:02, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:41:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<something(a)somewhere.no> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Henry, Henry, V. :-) >>> You are struggling now, aren't you? >>> If the particles loose kinetic energy without radiating, >>> where does the energy go? >> >> Gawd! This is elementary physics. Where does the energy go when a rock falls >> into water? >> >>> Come on, Henry. >>> You are claiming that the re-updated Wilson Field Theory >>> state that charged particles, like electrons, >>> don't emit photons when they loose energy. >> >> Hahahahhaha! Of course they don't. As with the aforementioned rock, they >> energise the field and IT emits the radiation ....at c wrt the field >> electrodes.... >> >> Obvious isn't it? > >I have noticed that whenever Henry Wilson writes >"Hahahahhaha!", an exceptionally silly statement follows. :-) > >Ralph Rabbidge: >When a charged particle is accelerated, it doesn't radiate. >It transfer energy to the accelerating field. :-) That's right. I presume you have heard the term 'back emf'. It's operates something like that. >>> Maybe you will have to re-update >>> the re-updated Wilson Field Theory? :-) >> >> Maybe you will need a brain transplant....get one from a chimp... >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> So the energy conservation law is violated. >> >> >> Hahahhaha! No Paul, This is pretty elementary. The energy goes into the >> field....something like magnetic damping. > >"Hahahhaha!" - and what usually follows - again! :-) > >> >>> Maybe the re-re-updated Wilson Field Theory state >>> that energy isn't conserved? :-) >> >> hahahhahha! my theory involves quite elementary physics. i'm surprised you are >> having difficulty understanding it. > >And again! :-) > >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Why should I ask when you have given the answer? >>> According to the WFT is synchrotron radiation emitted when >>> charged particles gain kinetic energy in an electric field. >> >> Well I would be inclined to say that it does not > >So according to WFT, it probably does, but you are inclined >to say it doesn't. >Not very precise, this theory of yours, is it? :-) > >> because all the applied energy >> goes into the particle's increased KE. > >Does it? :-) >Forgotten your "reverse field bubble", have you? :-) No....of course, at high speeds, MOST of hte energy is used in maintaining the bubble. >> This is a very different situation from >> that whereby a charge is deflected by a magnetic field and slowed in the >> process...(why is it slowed?) > >Conservation of momentum and energy. Not a good answer. Why should the deflection of a charge by a magnetic field be any different from, for instance, the maintenance of a planet in orbit by a gravity field? >> However even when a charge is accelerated by a field, there should be a reverse >> reaction ON that field ...and that could cause radiation emission FROM THE >> FIELD ITSELF. >> >>> BTW, Henry. >>> Do you know why the next generation high energy accelerators >>> (after LHC) probably will be linear accelerators? >>> Hint: Synchrotron radiation. >>> (They don't use the WFT in the design. :-) ) >> >> Of course they do...but they are too ignorant to realise the fact. ...The >> design is the same. ..... > >This makes it obvious that you KNOW you are raving. > >Have you been trolling all these years, Ralph? >Have you all the time known that you are babbling >incoherent nonsense just to see if anyone would bite? By now you are starting to seriously realise that I have made a major scientific discovery. Radiation originates in the fields, and not the particles. We now have a theory that provides opportunity to speculate about the nature of fields themselves. For instance, the field that causes electrons to oscillate in an antenna emits billions of photons as each charge accelerates and reacts with the field. Radio waves are 'photon density waves', photons being incredibly small particles. .. >>>>> 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. >>> >>> You didn't even understand the question, did you? >>> It was: >>> Where does the energy radiated from the bending >>> magnetic field come from? >> >> From the slowing of the particles, of course. That tends to REDUCE the field >> strength. >> >>> It is NOT fed into the magnets. >> >> ...maybe some Norwegian physics teachers should be fed to those big white hairy >> things up north... >> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> See? >> >> Of course I can see something as elemetary as that.. >> >>> The radiated energy is carried from the RF-cavities to >>> the bends as kinetic energy in the particles. >>> The radiated energy is NOT fed into the bending magnetic >>> field, but into the RF-cavities. >> >> The radiated energy comes from the decelerating particles' reaction on the >> applied magnetic field. It originates in the FIELD not the particles. >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> But you have explained nothing yet. >> >> Paul, why don't you simply acknowledge the fact that I have made the greatest >> physics discovery since the lever? >> >>> To repeat the probably still unanswered questions: >>> >>> If the synchrotron radiation is emitted from the magnetic >>> bending field, from where does the radiated energy come? >>> It is not fed into the bending magnets. >>> >>> If the particles loose kinetic energy without radiating, >>> where does the lost energy go? >> >> The answers are trivial and are given above... > >Quite. >Henry Wilson invents a new law of nature for every >phenomenon he must explain. > >When explaining synchrotron radiation, he has forgotten >that according to him, the kinetic energy of the charged >particle is but 0.5mv^2. The rest of its energy is >stored in his "reverse field bubble". I'm not sure how the bubble's energy would be isolated from that of the particle since it moves with the particle. > >But since you now has made it clear that you know you >are raving, there is no point in continuing the discussion. Paul, promise me one thing please. ...You will not write a paper on this and claim it is YOUR original idea. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 9 Aug 2010 19:03
On Aug 9, 5:05 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > No....of course, at high speeds, MOST of hte energy is used in maintaining the > bubble. This means, of course, that you believe the resistive forces are dissipative in nature. In other words, "frictional" rather than "inertial" resistance. This is completely contrary to fact. You won't admit this, of course... Jerry |