Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 30 Jul 2010 10:44 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] Always got an excuse ready, Ralph.
From: eric gisse on 30 Jul 2010 10:49 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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'. Still singing that old song, Ralph? Christ, you haven't looked at an optics textbook in at least a half century have you? > > On the other hand, Fizeau clearly refutes SR. > > http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm The only time you seem willing to read a paper and cite it is if it says something that you agree with. And then there's no chance of changing your mind even when the paper is wrong. [...]
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Jul 2010 18:38 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Pathetic, as usual. >> >> The vacuum might be high enough to avoid extinction but it is not high enough >> to prevent the occasional interaction. > >Such "occasional interactions" do indeed occur, but do not account for this: the >rest of the accelerator has SIMILAR (VERY LOW) DENSITIES OF GAS, but the >coherent x-rays are emitted ONLY when the beam is in the magnetic wiggler. I can't see any reference in the experiment to your claims. How and why are the x-rays formed and who measured their speeds? There is no reason why the x-ray pulse width should depend on the (constant) electron speed. X-rays are emitted over a certain electron travel time interval, around (L/c). They will arrive at a detector over the same time interval even if they move at 100c. As usual, the relativist logic is wrong. >Beam-gas interactions cannot possibly account for this. > > >Tom Roberts Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: blackhead on 30 Jul 2010 22:13 On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> Pathetic, as usual. > > >> The vacuum might be high enough to avoid extinction but it is not high enough > >> to prevent the occasional interaction. > > >Such "occasional interactions" do indeed occur, but do not account for this: the > >rest of the accelerator has SIMILAR (VERY LOW) DENSITIES OF GAS, but the > >coherent x-rays are emitted ONLY when the beam is in the magnetic wiggler. > > I can't see any reference in the experiment to your claims. > > How and why are the x-rays formed and who measured their speeds? Accelerated charge generates EM radiation. The wiggler "wiggles" and so changes the direction of the electrons, causing them to radiate. The speed of the electrons is what matters in this experiment. Here's a link to a wiggler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggler_(synchrotron) > There is no reason why the x-ray pulse width should depend on the (constant) > electron speed. X-rays are emitted over a certain electron travel time > interval, around (L/c). They will arrive at a detector over the same time > interval even if they move at 100c. Suppose you had just one electron entering the wiggler. The front end of the pulse is generated when the electron enters the wiggler, the back end when it leaves. If the front end of the pulse travels at the same velocity as the electron, then the back end will be generated where the electron and the front end of the pulse is, giving a pulse width of zero. A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the electrons, don't you think? > As usual, the relativist logic is wrong. > >Beam-gas interactions cannot possibly account for this. > > >Tom Roberts > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 Jul 2010 18:31
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote: >On 30 July, 23:38, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:59:58 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> Pathetic, as usual. >> >> >> The vacuum might be high enough to avoid extinction but it is not high enough >> >> to prevent the occasional interaction. >> >> >Such "occasional interactions" do indeed occur, but do not account for this: the >> >rest of the accelerator has SIMILAR (VERY LOW) DENSITIES OF GAS, but the >> >coherent x-rays are emitted ONLY when the beam is in the magnetic wiggler. >> >> I can't see any reference in the experiment to your claims. >> >> How and why are the x-rays formed and who measured their speeds? > >Accelerated charge generates EM radiation. The wiggler "wiggles" and >so changes the direction of the electrons, causing them to radiate. >The speed of the electrons is what matters in this experiment. Here's >a link to a wiggler: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggler_(synchrotron) > >> There is no reason why the x-ray pulse width should depend on the (constant) >> electron speed. X-rays are emitted over a certain electron travel time >> interval, around (L/c). They will arrive at a detector over the same time >> interval even if they move at 100c. > >Suppose you had just one electron entering the wiggler. The front end >of the pulse is generated when the electron enters the wiggler, the >back end when it leaves. If the front end of the pulse travels at the >same velocity as the electron, then the back end will be generated >where the electron and the front end of the pulse is, giving a pulse >width of zero. > >A wiggler has a length of the order of meters, with electrons >travelling around 1 meter per 3ns, yet the pulse width is of the order >fs. This would imply the X-rays travel close to the speed of the >electrons, don't you think? Pathetic You seem to be suggesting that the x-rays have a preferred direction. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |