sci.physics.electromag

Benj wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:31 pm, stan wrote:
>
>> > NB. I really appreciate that you seem to try to paint as complete
>> > a picture as possible to newbees. A rare commodity here.
>>
>> You think it's balanced to claim electrons have circular orbits?
>
> Do you think it's "balanced" to misrepresent the statements I made? I
> caution you as I did Timo that when you post on the internet there is
> an EXACT record of who said what... I pointed out to Fred and others
> that "orbits" in general are an out of date theory. Next thing you
> know he's trying to point that out to me as if I had said nothing.
> Well, yeah, old debating trick to be sure, but with a precise record
> it's hard to pull it off effectively.

Here's your quote:

> OK, Generally speaking it is accepted that the acceleration of an
> electron produces photon or electromagnetic radiation. It's a very
> "hot" topic in physics and beaucoup papers are out there on the
> subject. They range from the highly mathematical and imaginative
> (using mythical point charges etc.) to the practical. Not a lot of
> conclusions, however. Note for example that an "orbital" of an
> electron about an atom represents constant acceleration (as it's
> moving in a circle) but somehow does not produce radiation causing the
> atom to "decay". And as noted by others, when an orbital DOES produce
> radiation, it is in a very short time-frame "pulse", rather than by
> the Maxwell theory.

What exactly does "it's moving in a circle" mean?

>
> And I tell you, Andre, I'm not especially trying to be complete. But I
> do have a purpose and that is to let some air out of the tires of the
> establishment chorus that presents dogma as if it were fact and
> speculation as if it were truth. It's a common fault of university
> brass hens who get used to the power of the position whereby you can
> force students to accept your every word as gospel or they simply
> don't graduate or where you can use your power of "peer review" to
> keep the topic on the straight and narrow and eliminate any
> suggestions that the emperor might be naked. But the Internet is
> freedom and they have no power here except to call me names, question
> my education and intelligence, and misrepresent what I've said.
> Hopefully the lurkers will be smart enough not to fall for such tricks
> and will judge my wild pronouncements based upon demonstrable facts.
> If they do that, then no matter if I prove to be right or wrong, I
> will feel my efforts have been a success. :-)

And based on your quoted text above, it seems either you have a circular
orbit belief or you need to be more precise in your wording if you want
to be convincing to the judges.

I never had any problems with control or speaking my mind with any
professor. Of course I accept the rule that can't be backed up won't be
accepted. Idle claims get the same value applied as rumors and opinions.
I freely admit that much of science is best guess backed up by models
that work in every known case. It's possible that some ideas arae wrong
and the models are correct for different reasons, it's also possible
that we just haven't tried enough cases. But I'm also on the side that a
lot of pretty smart people have already tried to pull most of the
accepted ideas apart and haven't found a way yet. So it's more likely
that we might find a refinement to an existing model than the
possibility that we will find a flat out broke model and scrap an
accepted idea completely. Like it or not the burden for disproving an
accepted theory is on the attacker and the bar for proof is very high.
That fact and gravity are both here to stay, we might as well learn to
live with the consequences.

>
>
>