Re: My friend Newton laughs at Tom Roberts' Synchrotron Radiation

On Jun 19, 5:05 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:38 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 18, 11:49 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 18, 9:17 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:30 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Velocity is a vector. Change of velocity implies > acceleration,
1. Momentum (and orbital momentum) is conserved.
Linear momentum is not conserved in an orbit. There
is a force acting on a particle in an orbit, and
forces cause changes in momentum.

1st type of Orbit: There's the momentum where somebody's tied your
feet to a rope and then swings you around cowboy style and you feel
your head is going to leave your body....Yeee Haaaa. (head would fly
off if it was bonded weakly to your body) = ***RADIATION*** = head
flying off

Reason this is idiotic: I already told you, multiple times,
that synchrotron radiation is cause when CHARGED particles
accelerate.

You can use books and boats as models but I can't use other things.
There is an acceleration above and it causes objects to be emitted
away from another object moving at a constant orbiting velocity. Or do
photons fall into the nucleus.


2nd type of Orbit: There's the momentum where you've been thrown
perfectly horizontally by a super-cannon in a frictionless atmosphere
and don't realize there's a vertical gravity. (head would *NOT* fly
off no matter how weakly tied to your body ) = ***NO RADIATION*** = NO
head flying off.

Idiotic for the same reason.

Also an acceleration and an orbit yet nothing gets emitted away.





2. An increase of speed absorbs photons (radiation).
3. #3 cannot go further unless #2 is true.
We are talking about accelerations that do not involve
increases in speed.

Ok but an electron traveling in empty space in a STRAIGHT trajectory
increases its speed it does absorb photons...correct? (and when it
slows down...it emits photons(radiation)).

This is something that is taught in the first couple
of weeks of physics. Even the slower students catch
on. How many years will it take you?

(Bear with me on this...and my logical thinking)

The reason a change of direction is also an cceleration

Is because "acceleration" means "rate of change of
velocity vector" and a change in direction is a change of
that vector.

(SIMULTANEOUSLY A POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ACCELERATION) is from
converting polar velocity (constant "angular" velocity) into cartesian
coordinates MEANING.... although V_angular is constant:

Reason this is idiotic: "Polar" and "Cartesian" are merely
numerical systems for describing the same vector. Any
vector can be expressed either way. The "conversion" is
not a physical effect. Your position right now can
be described in latitude, longitude (polar) or in
(x,y,z) Cartesian. If I sit here and convert one to the
other with my pencil and paper, you won't feel a thing.

Next reason this is idiotic: "Simultaneously positive and
negative acceleration". Pure idiocy.

(CARTESIAN) V_x and V_y always VARY.


A CHANGE OF DIRECTION IS CALLED AN ACCELERATION BECAUSE VX AND VY
VARY.

An object moving straight say vx=10m/s and vy=0 and then changes
direction (with no loss of friction/energy) say 90 degree, vx=0 vy=10/
ms.

Next reason this is idiotic: This sentence is nonsense.
Velocity can be constant.


???? what??? A change of direction and Vx and Vy can be constant =
nonsense
(meaning Vx and Vy CANNOT BE the same (or as you said: "contant") as
Vx and Vy before the change of direction)

Step1: But not in any fashion, when Vx increases Vy always decreases
(and vice-versa).

Next reason this is nonsense. In cases where Vx or Vy

Cases, no cases ??? during an orbit (circle or ellips) there's always
a change of direction and therefore Vx&Vy are always changing in
values....always. (For minute changes of Vx or Vy then there's minute
changes of direction).


There is no mistake in the analogy given for Vx or Vy?

are changing, either can increase or decrease independently.
It depends on the direction of acceleration.

Step2: ....and there's even more since Ax and Ay are not constant (not
always the same value)

Next reason this is nonsense: That depends on the situation.


What I ment is Ax and Ay cannot be constant throughout the entire
orbit (impossible).

Step3:.....is what CONTROLS AX and AY values

Step4: ....cannot be concluded until #2 wayyyyy above is validated as
being true. (clue: thereafter logical reasoning using process of
elimination will be used)

Next reason this is nonsense: I have no idea what these
"steps" are steps OF.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast