New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model

Waldo Graham wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


Charlie wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


[snip]


It does. Here is the calculation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t*eaching/jk1/lectures/node34.ht*ml

Quote: "Thus, the radiation emitted by a highly relativistic charge is
focused into an intense beam of angular extent $1/\gamma$ pointing in
the instantaneous direction of motion."


*In* the direction of motion. *Not* opposite to it!


If someone wants to quibble that this is merely a calculation, then a
small hint: synchrotron radiation has been known and studied for
decades now. It is routinely used at lots of accelerators facilities
for lots of purposes. Its characteristics are very well studied.


[snip]

IF you are talking about Yoon's atomic model (not Charlie's), and IF
the evidence you provided is correct,

Do you have any reason to doubt that?


then your evidence STRONGLY
SUPPORT Yoon's atomic model (or specifically Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1,
Excerpt, www.yoonsatom.net) rather than contradict it.

Why?
If you look at Fig. 1-4-1, the electric force fluxes

*sigh* Field lines.


"in" the moving
direction (in other words, in front side) is denser (or narrower
spacing) than the opposite direction(in rear side), which means the
electric force is more forceful in front side than that in rear side.

But synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with "the electric force
is more forceful in front side". Thanks for showing that you did not
understand a word of that webpage.


(The angular extent calculated by the evidence you provided, 1/gamma,
might give quantitative measure of Yoon's Fig. 1-4-1, IF your evidence
is correct.)

The angular extent was given for something completely different than any
angle shown in Fig. 1-4-1.

Get an education.



If you know high school physics, you can understand that.

I think even someone knowing high school physics could see the errors
in your reasing.


It seems beyond your ability for you to understand the synchrotron
radiation or Yoon's theory, either.

Why do you think so?



Learn high school physics first, idiot

Do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" say anything to you?


Bye,
Bjoern