Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Jul 2010 18:32 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:31:43 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >On Jul 29, 6:46�am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of >> the source. �This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory >> has now been refuted experimentally. > >It was already discredited (or, "refuted", but that's in the eyes of >the beholder) in the 19th century with the experiments of Fizeau on >"Fresnel drag". It wasn't. The phase shift at each interaction with an atom is still an unknown quantity and was not taken into account. Without such knowledge, BaTh currently has NO precise theory about 'Fresnel Drag'. On the other hand, Fizeau clearly refutes SR. http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm >Regards, >Harald > >> Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + >> kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. �The theory propounded >> by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that >> k=1. �Einstein proposed that k=0. >> >> The following �account is copied from the collection of experimental >> papers on SR at >> >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. >> >> A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to >> the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region >> that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light >> emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), >> then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is >> k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before >> light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, >> v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as >> short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5�10-7. Optical >> extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high >> vacuum. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> k <= 0.00000025 >> >> Einstein wins decisively. >> >> Uncle Ben Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Jul 2010 18:38 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote: >On Jul 29, 5:11�pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > John, until you understand length contraction, there is no point in >> > discussing time dilation. >> >> > =============================================== >> > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) moving rods get longer. >> > tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), moving clocks get slower. >> > Length dilation and time contraction, Bonehead. >> >> Why does the rest of the world disagree with you, John. >> >> ===================================== >> Not my fault the world is full of stupid sheep all bleating the same "baa" >> like you, Bonehead. >> ===================================== >> >> We all agree >> with the equations you got from Einstein, but nobody else agrees with >> your interpretation. �Why is that? You would think that somebody, >> somewhere would see that you are right, but, as you have pointed out, >> everybody and his dog says you have it backwards. >> >> --- EVERYBODY! >> >> Could you have made a mistake, or has everybody been wrong for >> 100 years now and counting? >> ========================= >> If you think so then find it, but proof by "everybody knows" and proof by >> assertion seems to your only arguments. >> Those methods of proof is not listed in any textbook, or even in Wackypedia, >> Napoleon. >> >> xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) moving rods get longer. >> tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), moving clocks get slower. >> >> Prove that xi �and tau belong to the stationary frame. >> >> - Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -... > >OK, I'll answer your challenge. > >xi and tau belong to the moving frame, as you believe, What you don't >get that the rod/clock (depending on the equation) is also moving. >The speed of the rod and the clock are both zero w.r.t. the moving >frame. That makes the moving frame the rest frame for the rod/clock. > >That makes xi the proper length of the rod L and tau the reading of >the proper time of the clock. > >That leaves x' as the length of the rod w.r.t. the stationary frame. >Note: stationary frame, not stationary rod. > >You may disagree, but you are on your own in solitude. If it suits >your ego to play the lone knower of the truth, enjoy it. > >Now it is time for me to take my dog for a walk. ...............watch how he cocks his leg....you might learn to check which way the wind is blowing.... >Uncle Ben Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Uncle Ben on 29 Jul 2010 19:12 The following is the tail end of the long thread above starting with Androcles. I copy it here for the convenience of the reader wanting to know how it all came out with paging through a lot of stuff. On Jul 29, 6:19 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 5:11 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > >Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > huge snip > > > > > We all agree > > with the equations you got from Einstein, but nobody else agrees with > > your interpretation. Why is that? You would think that somebody, > > somewhere would see that you are right, but, as you have pointed out, > > everybody and his dog says you have it backwards. > > > --- EVERYBODY! > > > Could you have made a mistake, or has everybody been wrong for- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) moving rods get longer. > tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), moving clocks get slower. > Prove that xi and tau belong to the stationary frame. > - Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text -... OK, I'll answer your challenge. xi and tau belong to the moving frame, as you believe, What you don't get that the rod/clock (depending on the equation) is also moving. The speed of the rod and the clock are both zero w.r.t. the moving frame. That makes the moving frame the rest frame for the rod/clock. That makes xi the proper length of the rod L and tau the reading of the proper time of the clock. That leaves x' as the length of the rod w.r.t. the stationary frame. Note: stationary frame, not stationary rod. You may disagree, but you are on your own in solitude. If it suits your ego to play the lone knower of the truth, enjoy it. Now it is time for me to take my dog for a walk. Uncle Ben
From: Uncle Ben on 29 Jul 2010 19:16 On Jul 29, 6:38 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Answered above Uncle Ben
From: Uncle Ben on 29 Jul 2010 19:23
On Jul 29, 6:19 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > >There are those saying that the speed of light depends on the speed of > >the source. This explains the MMX experiment neatly, but the theory > >has now been refuted experimentally. > > >Let the speed of light emitted by a source moving at speed v be c + > >kv, where k is to be determined experimentally. The theory propounded > >by Androcles, NoEinstein and others in this newsgroup implies that > >k=1. Einstein proposed that k=0. > > >The following account is copied from the collection of experimental > >papers on SR at > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser,http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. > > >A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to > >the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region > >that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light > >emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), > >then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is > >k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before > >light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, > >v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as > >short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5×10-7. Optical > >extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high > >vacuum. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >k <= 0.00000025 > > >Einstein wins decisively. > > >Uncle Ben > > Pathetic....as usual. > > The X-rays are emitted when the electrons interact with occasional gas > molecules.....whose v>>0 wrt the apparatus frame. > > Henry Wilson... > Nope. It is a very high vacuum. No extinction. Uncle Ben |