Those that said radiation loss occurs due to orbit acceleration are
stupid.

Planet's do the SAME their kinetic energy remains constant, no energy
loss (only when their radial distance to the sun shrinks).

Radiation only occurs when there's energy loss to the system.

Such ignorance.

On Sep 18, 1:48 pm, " wrote:
Those that said radiation loss occurs due to orbit acceleration are
stupid.


No, they are correct. Any acceleration on a charged particle
results in radiation.

Planet's do the SAME their kinetic energy remains constant, no energy
loss (only when their radial distance to the sun shrinks).


Planets have no net charge, so they don't radiate
electromagnetic radiation. They *do* radiate gravitational
waves, but the effect is so tiny it's negligible for planets.
It *has* been observed in binary pulsars (see 1993 Nobel Prize):
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...993/press.html

It's fairly easy to estimate the approximate magnitude
of gravitational radiation from planets in orbits.

Except you seem to have a *little* problem with numbers.

Radiation only occurs when there's energy loss to the system.


In case of charged particles in static magnetic fields,
synchrotron radiation *causes* energy loss to the system.

Really, you seem to think you're having a profound discussion
here, but the mathematics of synchrotron radiation were
worked out some 60 years ago. See Elder, et al,
"Radiation from Electrons in a Synchrotron", Phys.Rev.
71.11 (1947). Today, it's the basis for the entire
"synchrotron light source" industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_light

Among the many things you're confused about seems to
to be the issue of electrons in an atom (which must
be treated quantum mechanically) and electrons in
a synchrotron (which can be treated quasi-classically).

Such ignorance.

This is true, you are very ignorant. I recommend you
read this
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
because it was written about you.

-jc

On Sep 20, 11:58 am, jcon wrote:

Snip stupidity.


Electron and planet undergo the ****SAME ACCELERATION**** in orbitals,
the planet does not lose KINETIC ENERGY.

THEREFORE if there's ****NO LOSS**** of energy there's no shedding of
energy in terms of radiation.

PERIOD.


When the electron sheds/absorbs radiation in all other areas it is in
terms of kinetic energy.

PERIOD.


The magnetic field in Synchrotrons must be *****perfectly
perpendicular***** in order not to interfere with the electron's
forward motion, that can only occur at a single ***INSTANT**** as the
electron passes by it, synchrotron do not/cannot work this way.

PERIOD.

On Sep 20, 8:58 am, jcon wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:48 pm, " wrote:

Those that said radiation loss occurs due to orbit acceleration are
stupid.

No, they are correct. Any acceleration on a charged particle
results in radiation.

Any accelerating charged particle is observed to radiate regardless of
the polarity of charge, but how about neutral particles?

Planet's do the SAME their kinetic energy remains constant, no energy
loss (only when their radial distance to the sun shrinks).

Planets have no net charge, so they don't radiate
electromagnetic radiation. They *do* radiate gravitational
waves, but the effect is so tiny it's negligible for planets.
It *has* been observed in binary pulsars (see 1993 Nobel Prize):

Well, you can be a wise guy and point out that a neutral particle is
consisted of opposite but equally charged particles. Thus, a neutral
particle must radiate more than a charged, fundamental particle. In
doing so, you will find the radiated amount under electromagnetism is
so pathetically deviating from GR. shrug

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Well, you can be a wise guy and point out that a neutral particle is
consisted of opposite but equally charged particles. Thus, a neutral
particle must radiate more than a charged, fundamental particle. In
doing so, you will find the radiated amount under electromagnetism is
so pathetically deviating from GR. shrug

:-)

Paul

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:38:38 -0000, Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Sep 20, 8:58 am, jcon wrote:
On Sep 18, 1:48 pm, " wrote:

Those that said radiation loss occurs due to orbit acceleration are
stupid.

No, they are correct. Any acceleration on a charged particle
results in radiation.

Any accelerating charged particle is observed to radiate regardless of
the polarity of charge, but how about neutral particles?

Planet's do the SAME their kinetic energy remains constant, no energy
loss (only when their radial distance to the sun shrinks).

Planets have no net charge, so they don't radiate
electromagnetic radiation. They *do* radiate gravitational
waves, but the effect is so tiny it's negligible for planets.
It *has* been observed in binary pulsars (see 1993 Nobel Prize):

Well, you can be a wise guy and point out that a neutral particle is
consisted of opposite but equally charged particles. Thus, a neutral
particle must radiate more than a charged, fundamental particle. In
doing so, you will find the radiated amount under electromagnetism is
so pathetically deviating from GR. shrug

Why don't you show us the calculation?

On Sep 20, 8:40 pm, " wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:58 am, jcon wrote:

Snip stupidity.

Electron and planet undergo the ****SAME ACCELERATION**** in orbitals,
the planet does not lose KINETIC ENERGY.

THEREFORE if there's ****NO LOSS**** of energy there's no shedding of
energy in terms of radiation.

PERIOD.

When the electron sheds/absorbs radiation in all other areas it is in
terms of kinetic energy.

PERIOD.

The magnetic field in Synchrotrons must be *****perfectly
perpendicular***** in order not to interfere with the electron's
forward motion, that can only occur at a single ***INSTANT**** as the
electron passes by it, synchrotron do not/cannot work this way.

PERIOD.

Why do kooks always think writing things in capital letters makes
them true?

-jc

On Sep 21, 12:38 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:58 am, jcon wrote:

On Sep 18, 1:48 pm, " wrote:
Those that said radiation loss occurs due to orbit acceleration are
stupid.

No, they are correct. Any acceleration on a charged particle
results in radiation.

Any accelerating charged particle is observed to radiate regardless of
the polarity of charge, but how about neutral particles?

Planet's do the SAME their kinetic energy remains constant, no energy
loss (only when their radial distance to the sun shrinks).

Planets have no net charge, so they don't radiate
electromagnetic radiation. They *do* radiate gravitational
waves, but the effect is so tiny it's negligible for planets.
It *has* been observed in binary pulsars (see 1993 Nobel Prize):

Well, you can be a wise guy and point out that a neutral particle is
consisted of opposite but equally charged particles. Thus, a neutral
particle must radiate more than a charged, fundamental particle.

You could say that if you never actually looked at
the theory of synchrotron radiation. However, if
you knew enough to actually do a calculation, you
would find this statement is false.

In
doing so, you will find the radiated amount under electromagnetism is
so pathetically deviating from GR. shrug

You could say that if you are used to doing "calculations"
by drinking beer and thinking about how you're really
really sure the universe must work. But if you do
actual calculations with the actual equations of
physics and actual numbers, you will find this statement
is false.

Shrug.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Sep 21, 12:38 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
: On Sep 20, 8:58 am, jcon wrote:
:
: On Sep 18, 1:48 pm, " wrote:
: Those that said radiation loss occurs due to orbit acceleration are
: stupid.
:
: No, they are correct. Any acceleration on a charged particle
: results in radiation.
:
: Any accelerating charged particle is observed to radiate regardless of
: the polarity of charge, but how about neutral particles?
:
: Planet's do the SAME their kinetic energy remains constant, no
energy
: loss (only when their radial distance to the sun shrinks).
:
: Planets have no net charge, so they don't radiate
: electromagnetic radiation. They *do* radiate gravitational
: waves, but the effect is so tiny it's negligible for planets.
: It *has* been observed in binary pulsars (see 1993 Nobel Prize):
:
: Well, you can be a wise guy and point out that a neutral particle is
: consisted of opposite but equally charged particles. Thus, a neutral
: particle must radiate more than a charged, fundamental particle.
:
: You could say that if you never actually looked at
: the theory of synchrotron radiation. However, if
: you knew enough to actually do a calculation, you
: would find this statement is false.


But you don't know enough, Poe. You couldn't even calculate
how Sagnac works.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm