Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 1 Aug 2010 18:29 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:19:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 1, 3:35�am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> As usual, the relativist logic is wrong, the undulator doesn't move at c. >> Why should it emit photons at twice nothing? > >Wrong. Check out the Lienard-Wiechert potential: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard-Wiechert_potential >This describes the electromagnetic effect of a moving charge. Totally inadequate. The equations are based on classical wave theory and ignores quantum effects. > >Scroll down the article a bit. It is a time-dependent integral >over charge density. In other words, only the motions of the >charges matter. Other fields do not enter into the equation. hahahhhahaha! The exact nature of the emission of EM quanta by accelerating charges is not known. Answer me this, old fella: An electron is randomly accelerated so that it continuously emits lots of x-ray QUANTA. In spite of this, the electron remains completely unchanged? How come? >In other words, EM is generated when you wiggle a bunch of >electrons. It doesn't matter -how- you wiggle them. EM is randomly generated in quantum steps. Its direction of travel could conceivably be related to the electron's acceleration but NOT its velocity. > A typical method is to connect an antenna to the output of an > RLC resonant circuit. The antenna doesn't need a magnetic field > to operate correctly. EM is not emitted by the non-existent > magnetic field in which the antenna does not operate. > > You could also stick a charged pith ball to the end of a ruler > and wave it. EM is emitted by accelerated electrons in the pith > ball. It is not emitted by the non-existent magnetic field in > which you are not waving the ruler. Can you describe the physical process that detemines exactly how and when these EM quanta are emitted? Of course you can't. You haven't a clue. > In an accelerator undulator, EM is emitted by the accelerating > electrons. Magnets are important only in so far as they are the > means by which you are accelerating the electrons. But the > Lienard-Wiechert equation tells us that it is the electrons > that are doing the emitting, not the static magnetic field that > is forcing the electrons to wiggle. > >If you disagree with the above, then you need to supply a >replacement for Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations do not work for individual EM quanta. Even YOU should be aware of that. The plain fact is, the x-rays are created by the accelerating charge's action on the applied field. I say 'FIELDS' themselves are quantized and EM quanta are somehow emitted when an accelerated charge is forced through the applied FIELD'S quantum energy levels. This happens because of the electron's mass and inertia. Thus, the x-rays are generated in the field not the charge. Their speed should be c relative to the field lines. However if you refuse to accept the radical new WILSON FIELD THEORY, I will raise another point for you to stew over. IF as you claim, the electron emits a high energy x-ray, what the hell do you think happens to the electron's momentum and velocity? By way of example, try firing a 1 kilogram bullet from a 1 kilogram gun. >Good luck. > >Jerry > > > > > > Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 2 Aug 2010 07:58 On Aug 1, 5:29 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:19:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >On Aug 1, 3:35 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > >> As usual, the relativist logic is wrong, the undulator doesn't move at c. > >> Why should it emit photons at twice nothing? > > >Wrong. Check out the Lienard-Wiechert potential: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard-Wiechert_potential > >This describes the electromagnetic effect of a moving charge. > > Totally inadequate. The equations are based on classical wave theory and > ignores quantum effects. > > > > >Scroll down the article a bit. It is a time-dependent integral > >over charge density. In other words, only the motions of the > >charges matter. Other fields do not enter into the equation. > > hahahhhahaha! The exact nature of the emission of EM quanta by accelerating > charges is not known. > > Answer me this, old fella: > > An electron is randomly accelerated so that it continuously emits lots of x-ray > QUANTA. In spite of this, the electron remains completely unchanged? How come? > > >In other words, EM is generated when you wiggle a bunch of > >electrons. It doesn't matter -how- you wiggle them. > > EM is randomly generated in quantum steps. Its direction of travel could > conceivably be related to the electron's acceleration but NOT its velocity. > > > A typical method is to connect an antenna to the output of an > > RLC resonant circuit. The antenna doesn't need a magnetic field > > to operate correctly. EM is not emitted by the non-existent > > magnetic field in which the antenna does not operate. > > > You could also stick a charged pith ball to the end of a ruler > > and wave it. EM is emitted by accelerated electrons in the pith > > ball. It is not emitted by the non-existent magnetic field in > > which you are not waving the ruler. > > Can you describe the physical process that detemines exactly how and when these > EM quanta are emitted? Of course you can't. You haven't a clue. > > > In an accelerator undulator, EM is emitted by the accelerating > > electrons. Magnets are important only in so far as they are the > > means by which you are accelerating the electrons. But the > > Lienard-Wiechert equation tells us that it is the electrons > > that are doing the emitting, not the static magnetic field that > > is forcing the electrons to wiggle. > > >If you disagree with the above, then you need to supply a > >replacement for Maxwell's equations. > > Maxwell's equations do not work for individual EM quanta. Even YOU should be > aware of that. > > The plain fact is, the x-rays are created by the accelerating charge's action > on the applied field. I say 'FIELDS' themselves are quantized and EM quanta are > somehow emitted when an accelerated charge is forced through the applied > FIELD'S quantum energy levels. This happens because of the electron's mass and > inertia. > > Thus, the x-rays are generated in the field not the charge. Their speed should > be c relative to the field lines. > > However if you refuse to accept the radical new WILSON FIELD THEORY, I will > raise another point for you to stew over. What field theory? Have you presented a single equation? Can you calculate ANYTHING with your so-called "theory"? All you've done is present a scattershot set of ill-thought-out objections with no grounding to them. Just a few days ago, you were claiming that synchrotron radiation resulted "when the electrons interact with occasional gas molecules", which represented some sort of new low in stupidity. Well, let's do a few simple checks of how well WFT compares with with Maxwell's equations. Here are a couple of simple exercises for you to solve: (25 points) Bend a meter of wire into a circular dipole. Feed the antenna current I(t) = I_0 sin (2 pi f t) where I_0 = 1 amp and f = 60 Hz. Using WFT, calculate the radiated power. Here is a second problem, a straight memorization problem: (75 points) Present the equations of Wilson Field Theory. You need to score 70% or above to pass. I recommend that you start with the easy one, the straight memorization problem. Jerry
From: Paul B. Andersen on 3 Aug 2010 16:19 On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead<larryharson(a)softhome.net> > wrote: > >> On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben<b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> On Jul 29, 6:19 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben<b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of >>>>>>>> the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory >>>>>>>> has now been refuted experimentally. >>>>>>>> Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + >>>>>>>> kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded >>>>>>>> by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that >>>>>>>> k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. >>>>>>>> The following account is copied from the collection of experimental >>>>>>>> papers on SR at >>>>>>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------��------------------- >>>>>>>> Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. >>>>>>>> A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to >>>>>>>> the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region >>>>>>>> that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light >>>>>>>> emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), >>>>>>>> then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is >>>>>>>> k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before >>>>>>>> light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, >>>>>>>> v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as >>>>>>>> short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5�10-7. Optical >>>>>>>> extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high >>>>>>>> vacuum. >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------��-------------- >>>>>>>> k<= 0.00000025 >>>>>>>> Einstein wins decisively. >>>>>>>> Uncle Ben >>>>>>> Pathetic....as usual. >>> >>>>>>> The X-rays are emitted when the electrons interact with occasional gas >>>>>>> molecules.....whose v>>0 wrt the apparatus frame. >>> >>>>>>> Henry Wilson... >>> >>>>>> Nope. It is a very high vacuum. No extinction. >>> >>>>> Pathetic, as usual. >>> >>>>> The vacuum might be high enough to avoid extinction but it is not high enough >>>>> to prevent the occasional interaction. >>> >>>> Such "occasional interactions" do indeed occur, but do not account for this: the >>>> rest of the accelerator has SIMILAR (VERY LOW) DENSITIES OF GAS, but the >>>> coherent x-rays are emitted ONLY when the beam is in the magnetic wiggler. >>> >>> I can't see any reference in the experiment to your claims. >>> >>> How and why are the x-rays formed and who measured their speeds? >> >> Accelerated charge generates EM radiation. The wiggler "wiggles" and >> so changes the direction of the electrons, causing them to radiate. >> The speed of the electrons is what matters in this experiment. Here's >> a link to a wiggler: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggler_(synchrotron) >> >>> There is no reason why the x-ray pulse width should depend on the (constant) >>> electron speed. X-rays are emitted over a certain electron travel time >>> interval, around (L/c). They will arrive at a detector over the same time >>> interval even if they move at 100c. >> >> Suppose you had just one electron entering the wiggler. The front end >> of the pulse is generated when the electron enters the wiggler, the >> back end when it leaves. If the front end of the pulse travels at the >> same velocity as the electron, then the back end will be generated >> where the electron and the front end of the pulse is, giving a pulse >> width of zero. >> >> A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons >> travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order >> fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the >> electrons, don't you think? > > Pathetic > > You seem to be suggesting that the x-rays have a preferred direction. 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? Pathetic indeed. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Darwin123 on 3 Aug 2010 16:45 On Aug 2, 5:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 04:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Aug 1, 5:29 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:19:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Aug 1, 3:35 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Theories need models before any maths can be developed. > I have made the discovery and provided the model....the cloned drones (mass > produced graduates like little eric) can do the maths. > > Henry Wilson... > Spoken like a true middle-manager. The Pointed Hair Boss (PHB) could say it no better.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 3 Aug 2010 16:53
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead<larryharson(a)softhome.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> >>> A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons >>> travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order >>> fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the >>> electrons, don't you think? >> >> Pathetic >> >> You seem to be suggesting that the x-rays have a preferred direction. > > >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? > >Pathetic indeed. Hahahahha! Is that charged particle moving inertially? If it is, why should anything it emits have a 'preferred direction'? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |