Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Aug 2010 20:23 "Darwin123" wrote in message news:7c9957e5-1f27-4e68-8bc2-10e6340672bf(a)t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > I quoted your lovely poetry to make that point. Your statements >have nothing to do with mathematics. When someone does mention >mathematics, you run away. This is because you are a coward and a >phony. > You don't accept mathematics and you don't accept the English >language. You don't like the words virtual or real as regards to >photons, but you don't like Fourier series either. You prefer real >obscenities and virtual psychosis |:-) Nicely put.
From: Jerry on 10 Aug 2010 21:55 On Aug 10, 5:11 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:09:38 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> All short period cepheids are likely to be pulsating stars. > > >Also long period Cepheids. Also intermediate period Cepheids... > > How would you know? You are some idiot to have totally ignored several years of discussion. For starters: All Cepheids exhibit period jitter (aka period noise, amplitude noise) inconsistent with the orbital hypothesis. Direct interferometric measurements have been made of the diameter of the nearer Cepheids. Temperature changes have been measured consistent with adiabatic expansion/contraction, which are consistent with measured diameter changes. <snip> > >> >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. > > >> That was a harmless joke that I admitted and which just happened to lead to the > >> right explanation. I don't have to fake them any more. OK, try fitting beta Dor and U Nor: http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/140/2/465/pdf/0067-0049_140_2_465.pdf Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 11 Aug 2010 20:15 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:59:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 10.08.2010 01:27, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:49:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> Paul: >>> "How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can >>> be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted >>> in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged >>> particle?" >>> >>> Ralph Rabbidge: >>> "Hahahahha! >>> Is that charged particle moving inertially? >>> If it is, why should anything it emits have >>> a 'preferred direction'?" >> >> Since the particle is changing direction continuously in a cyclotron, how does >> the radiation know which direction to travel in? > >Are you serious? :-) >An aeroplane has a cannon pointing forwards. >It shoots while it is turning. >How does the bullets know which direction to travel in? hahahhahhhahhaha! ....stop it Paul, or I'll die laughing...A.re guns mounted on the front or the back ...or sides? In a cyclotron D, the acceleration is towards the centre....so what should that tell you about the radiation's preferred direction? >>>> My point was that the direction of radiation must be acceleration and not >>>> velocity dependent BECAUSE the particles are NOT inertial. >>> >>> Yea, right! >>> Hilarious, no? :-) >>> >>> But let's remember your claim: >>> "the direction of radiation must be acceleration and not >>> velocity dependent" >> >> Well, let's put that another way. If there is NO acceleration there is NO >> radiation whether the particle has a relative velocity or not. So, in that >> respect, it is solely acceleration dependent.. > >So the direction of radiation isn't velocity dependent, because >there wouldn't be a radiation if there was no acceleration. > >You are doing great now, Ralph! :-) No, I didn't say that at all. I presented you with a problem and I wanted to see your answer. Where is 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) >> >>> It is a _fact_ that synchrotron radiation is emitted >>> in a narrow beam along the velocity vector. >>> This is observed right now in a number of storage ring >>> around the world, some of which are built with the sole >>> purpose of producing synchrotron radiation. >>> >>> It is a _fact_ that SR predicts such a beaming effect, >>> and that its predictions are in accordance with the >>> measurements. >>> >>> So Henry Wilson, you were wrong when claiming: >>> "the direction of radiation must be acceleration and not >>> velocity dependent" >> >> Hahahhahhaahahahahahha! > >The "Hahahhahhaahahahahahha!" again! >So what follows? > >> Stop it Paul, your killing me.......Hahahahahhahhahhaha! >> >> The bloody particles are continuously changing direction. >> >> HAHAHHAHHAHAHHHHAHA! > >Thanks for the demonstration, Ralph! :-) OK I'll be serious. Your point emphasises the difference between an electric and a magnetic fields. The electric fields accelerate the charges in the same direction as their velocity vector. The magentic fields do so at right angles. Which situation gives rise to synchrotron radiation, Paul?..and what can you say about its direction in the two cases. >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> So the WFT doesn't change only from posting to posting, it changes >>> within the same posting. >>> >>> BTW, strange theory that "might have a term.." :-) >> >> Like all radically new and world shattering theories, the WFT is still under >> development. It opens up a whole new world of opportunity for young physicists >> to make real names for themselves. > >Quite. >It is obviously under development since it changes all the time, >and states the opposite within the same posting of yours. >But the math of the ever changing theory is known and fixed. >It is identical to the the math of Maxwell an SR. >Strange, isn't it? :-) It is only the same in the case of the apparent mass increase....which is not really a mass increase at all .... but energy built up in the WRFB. >>>> 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. >>> >>> Ah. The math, which includes the Lorentz transform, >>> is the same, even if the WFT changes all the time, >>> and not even Henry Wilson knows what it says! >>> >>> According to him: >>> "The direction of radiation must be acceleration >>> and not velocity dependent, but 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. " >> >> Tell me, what is the direction of the radiation in the Ds of a cyclotron. > >A bit slow, Ralph? >Since the particles are changing direction all the time, >the radiation gets dizzy, and don't know where to go, >so it isn't necessarily tangential to the particle beam. >Or is it? I'm waiting for YOU to tell ME >>> "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. >>> I would be inclined to say that it does not because all the applied >>> energy goes into the particle's increased KE." >>> >>> But the math is the same as SR's. :-) >>> So even Henry Wilson knows that the predictions of SR are correct, >>> and that SR therefore is confirmed by synchrotron radiation. >> >> Paul, you're rambling on without saying anything of importance. You are trying >> to find flaws in my theory but obviously cannot. > >Yea. Right. Obviously! :-) > >> The WFT is in its infancy. I have made the BIG breakthrough but it is not fully >> developed by any means. If you tried to be a little bit more positive you might >> be able to share in this great adventure of discovery. > >It's comforting that your megalomania prohibits you >from understanding how pathetic you are. >Your embarrassment would otherwise be unbearable. Paul, the radiation emanates frim the FIELD and not the particle. Is that so hard to accept? >>> I will remember that the math of WFT includes >>> Lorentz transform! :-) > >Because it does, doesn't it? ......well, the gamma term is just the geometric mean of c+v and c-v....which is likely to crop up anywhere. >"If they design it according to relativistic physics it > will automatically include the WFT because the maths are > the same." > >Good grief! :-) Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 11 Aug 2010 20:21 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:18:21 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Aug 5, 6:18�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. > Ahh! And there is more, yes? And you know what that is, yes? And >you know the maths by which fields operate, yes? I know more than you do. Fields produce raditaion when they accelerate charged particles.. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 11 Aug 2010 23:41
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>>> I will remember that the math of WFT includes >>>> Lorentz transform! :-) >> >>Because it does, doesn't it? > > .....well, the gamma term is just the geometric mean of c+v and > c-v....which is likely to crop up anywhere. If you actually studied SR, you'd know there's more to it than 'the gamma term'. > >>"If they design it according to relativistic physics it >> will automatically include the WFT because the maths are >> the same." >> >>Good grief! :-) > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |