Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Aug 2010 17:46 On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 29, 7:58�am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ae8ec65f-621e-42c0-b79a-096a3660f579(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 29, 3:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > ======================================================= >> >> > Let k = 0, i.e. photons are being emitted at c >> > E----------------------------F >> > *| >> > Since the electrons are traveling at 0.9999997c, the difference >> > between front and rear of the 1c X-ray beam = 9 um >> > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 9 um/c = 40 fs >> >> > Jerry- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> Thanks for the explcation. >> ====================== >> Explcation? >> Hmm... Why do those electrons wait until they hit something >> stationary before they emit the x-rays? > Rays are the noncommittal word between waves and photons. If >someone says the electron emits electromagnetic waves, he is saying >that the electron is emitting electromagnetic energy in certain >directions. We can avoid some of the usual name calling if we restrict >discussion to "electromagnetic rays." hahahahaha! Accelerating charges cause quantum particles to be emitted in a direction that is a function of the acceleration. There are no 'waves' involved in one particle. > According to classical electrodynamics, electric charges emit >electromagnetic rays when they accelerate. > It isn't that the electrons emit xrays when they "hit something". >As moving electrons come closer to the electrons in the material, they >slow down. The accelerate in a direction opposite their motion. It is >because of the acceleration that the electrons emit light rays, or >radio waves. the accelerating electron causes the FILD to emit an x-ray particle. > It isn't the "hitting a stationary object" per se that causes the >electrons to emit electromagnetic rays. Anything that causes the >electrons to change velocity (speed or direction) causes the electron >to emit electromagnetic energy. So why doesn't the electron change when the x-ray is emitted? > As to why an accelerating charge emits electromagnetic rays. > An antennae also emits radio rays when electrons accelerate. The >electrons in the antennae move back and forth, changing both the speed >of motion and the direction. A radio wave involves variations in photon density. > Electric charges that accelerate generate electromagnetic rays. It >isn't hitting per se that does anything. The electric fields >accelerate the electrons, and the accelerating electrons emit >electromagnetic rays. The FIELDS emit the x-rays...not the electrons. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Aug 2010 17:54 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:28:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <something(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 03.08.2010 22:53, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> 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, Henry, Henry :-) >Fully qualified physicist, eh? :-) >Doctor of science, eh? :-) > >Why would an inertial charged particle emit anything at all? > >You have now demonstrated: >- That you don't know what synchrotron radiation is. >- That you don't know that synchrotron radiation is > emitted in a narrow beam. >- That you don't know what an undulator (or wiggler) is. >- That you don't know that the X-rays in an undulator > are emitted in a narrow beam. >- That you don't know why the X-rays in an undulator > are emitted in a narrow beam. >- That you don't know that the X-radiation from > an undulator is monochromatic (possibly with harmonics). >- That you don't know why the X-radiation from > an undulator is monochromatic (possibly with harmonics). >- That you have no clue of what we are talking about. > >Your ignorance has ceased to amaze, but it is still amusing. > >"Hahahahha!" indeed. > >Henry Wilson wrote: >"The X-rays are emitted when the electrons interact with occasional > gas molecules.....whose v>>0 wrt the apparatus frame." Not exactly The updated Wilson Field Theory states that when a charge is accelerated, it reacts back on the applied field causing THAT FIELD to emit an EM quantum. The charge's acceleration vector and its mass determine the direction and amount of energy radiated. The x-rays do not come from the electron at all but from the field. >What a pathetic ignorant idiot! :-) Far ahead of you, I'm sure. >"Hahahahha!" repeated. Hahahahaha! Prove the WFT is wrong. I win again. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Aug 2010 17:55 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:13:17 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 3, 3:53�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(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<larryhar...(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? > >No. You may want to look up what the source of synchrotron radiation >is. It's from an accelerated charge. I didn't claim it was moving inertially you dope. I asked YOU a question. >> If it is, why should anything it >> emits have a 'preferred direction'? >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Aug 2010 18:02 On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 3, 3:59�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> The Wilson model says that when a charge is accelerated, its affest on the >> applied field causes THAT FIELD to release a quantim of energy. > >It is easy to demonstrate that the Wilson "model" is false. > >1) The more a charge distorts the applied field, the more the > field should radiate. >2) Heavier objects should shove around any applied fields more > than lighter objects do. 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. >3) Protons are heavier than electrons. >4) Therefore, WFT predicts that a beam of protons passing through > an undulator at 99.99999% of the light should generate more > synchrotron radiation than a beam of electrons passing through > the undulator at the same speed. > >This being -completely- contrary to fact, WFT is falsified. Your logic is wrong. I win again. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 4 Aug 2010 18:04
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:52:53 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >Snipping fuckwit "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:6bd6db1f-ed52-4726-a14e- >> 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. > >Did you really, drosen? >How clever of you! I wrote that, you silly old drunken pommie engineer. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |