On Jun 24, 1:29 am, " wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:45 am, "Sue..." wrote:

On Jun 23, 3:05 am, " wrote:

Below the conservation of enery does not include any radiation
emission, yet the electron is being accelerated.

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/...l/index_em_mat...

QUOTE: "Since energy is always conserved, the kinetic energy of the
ejected electron, its binding (orbital) energy, and the new photon
energy all add up to the quantum energy of the original incident
photon."

Where is the word accelerate found on that page?

Sue...

Now now Sue....no one likes to be pointed out making an error
(especially in this...."newsgroup" with the Eric Gisses smurking
around).

But I now if you think twice about you will see your "little"
error.......

The eror would only be a spelliing error searching for the word.
If you think I am proud of my spelling then you really don't read
responses.

Again:
Where is the word "accelerate" on the page you referenced?



(just in case (I also make similar mistakes)....it wouldn't be part of
the CONSERVATION equation if the velocity of the electron was not
affected)

Three sources of energy are summed before the interaction.
Three sources of energy are summed after the interaction.

The page says the sums are the same (conserved).
There is no way you can know if something was
accelerated or not. (and QM is formulated so you can't know)

If you insist on running before you can walk, don't bame
the city for making the sidewalk too rough for your face.

Learn how charges move:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

Sue...

On Jun 23, 6:28 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:05 am, " wrote:

Below the conservation of enery does not include any radiation
emission, yet the electron is being accelerated.

No, it isn't.


The portion you clipped says it has a different kinetic energy: it
could mean a different oscillation (or intensity) but I'm pretty sure
(as well as from the Feynman diagrams) that this kinetic energy is
attribuable to a change of velocity therefore an acceleration?


-------------------------------------------
(maybe off topic...does since kinetic energy for electriicty is "only"
expressed in voltage and current intensity....does a higher voltage
mean a higher electron drift velocity)?


How many times do you plan to go around that particular
loop?

Q. An electron going to a higher shell is accelerated...
A. No it isn't.


It changes direction? Isn't that an acceleration?


Q. OK, but an electron going to a higher shell speeds up...
A. No it doesn't.

A satellite going to a further orbit speeds up?
Slows down lower, slows down completely = crash.


Q. OK, but anyway an electron going to a higher shell
is accelerated...
A. No it isn't...

Can we save time? The answer is "no it isn't", every
time you make this statement. For future reference, this
will be Guskz Statement EHSA (Electron Higher Shell Accelerated).

- Randy

On Jun 23, 8:32 pm, " wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:44 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 22, 10:05 pm, " wrote:
[...]

Why don't you stop worrying about advanced subjects and master the
basics first?

Why don't you read newsgroup posts instead of insulting everyone.
Hint: go back 4 years ago and you did not do this. You lost faith in
me, after the effort excerted over my hammer and magnet story.

When lost of faith occurs people stop listening (or reading) even to
the one above.

Actually I did do this four years ago, just not to the same extent as
I do now.

It isn't because my personality changed, but because I know a lot more
physics than I did then.

On Jun 24, 2:09 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:32 pm, " wrote:

On Jun 23, 4:44 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 22, 10:05 pm, " wrote:
[...]

Why don't you stop worrying about advanced subjects and master the
basics first?

Why don't you read newsgroup posts instead of insulting everyone.
Hint: go back 4 years ago and you did not do this. You lost faith in
me, after the effort excerted over my hammer and magnet story.

When lost of faith occurs people stop listening (or reading) even to
the one above.

Actually I did do this four years ago, just not to the same extent as



What I wrote was tangeable to your beliefs back then so much so that
you "physically" did a test...but all of a sudden not a "single"
writing makes any sense to you.

Impossible and therefore your insults are not towards what I write but
how you see me ...instead = lack of faith.



I do now.

It isn't because my personality changed, but because I know a lot more
physics than I did then.

On Jun 23, 7:13 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:05 am, " wrote:

Below the conservation of enery does not include any radiation
emission, yet the electron is being accelerated.

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/...l/index_em_mat...

QUOTE: "Since energy is always conserved, the kinetic energy of the
ejected electron, its binding (orbital) energy, and the new photon
energy all add up to the quantum energy of the original incident
photon."

You have at least three serious repeating misconceptions rolled
up in this one:

Electrons in atoms are in little planetary orbits.
(We'll call that Guskz Statement EAKO -- Electrons
in Atoms, Keplerian Orbits).

Planets in higher orbits have faster speeds (we'll
call that Guskz Statement OPHS -- Outer Planets
Higher Speeds).

More energy always means more speed (we'll call this
Guskz Statement AEIK -- All energy is kinetic).

The answer to all of these is "no it isn't" but
let me show you why OPHS is wrong. Here's some
orbital calculations.

A planet around a sun of mass M at distance R obeys

GM/R^2 = v^2/R

v = sqrt(GM/R)

So as R increases, v decreases. If R doubles,
v decreases by sqrt(2). A little more data for you:

Orbital speed of Mercury = 59 km/sec
Orbital speed of earth = 29.8 km/sec
Orbital speed of Mars = 24.1 km/sec
Orbital speed of Jupiter = 13.1 km/sec

- Randy

Some small ingredient in the equation about centrifugal force is
missing but I forget. Elvis in Rustabout spins in circles on his
motorcycle to escape the gravity well. (likewise for
satellites...faster = higher orbit, too slow and it crashes to the
Earth on Eric Gisse).

On 2007-06-23, wrote:
Below the conservation of enery does not include any radiation
emission, yet the electron is being accelerated.

The electrons orbit secretly. It's an NSA konspiracy.


http://resources.yesican-science.ca/...em_matter.html

QUOTE: "Since energy is always conserved, the kinetic energy of the
ejected electron, its binding (orbital) energy, and the new photon
energy all add up to the quantum energy of the original incident
photon."

On Jun 24, 5:07 pm, Bilge wrote:
On 2007-06-23, wrote:

Below the conservation of enery does not include any radiation
emission, yet the electron is being accelerated.

The electrons orbit secretly. It's an NSA konspiracy.


Tell me about they even wrote Conspiracy wrong.



http://resources.yesican-science.ca/...l/index_em_mat...

QUOTE: "Since energy is always conserved, the kinetic energy of the
ejected electron, its binding (orbital) energy, and the new photon
energy all add up to the quantum energy of the original incident
photon."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -