Ballistic theory of light demolished
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 3 Aug 2010 20:52 Snipping fuckwit "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6bd6db1f-ed52-4726-a14e- > Theories need models before any maths can be developed. > I have made the discovery and provided the model....the cloned drones > (mass > produced graduates like little eric) can do the maths. Did you really, drosen? How clever of you!
From: Androcles on 3 Aug 2010 20:54 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ea42f065-9a42-4dff-9bb4-d7458ab87fe1(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Jul 29, 7:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message > > news:ae8ec65f-621e-42c0-b79a-096a3660f579(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 29, 3:17 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 28, 11:46 pm, 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 > > > It is not necessarily obvious to casual readers why generation > > of ultra-short X-ray pulses disproves ballistic theory. > > > Consider a 10 fs pulse of electrons * traveling through the > > undulator at v=0.9999997 c, with X-rays |||| being continually > > emitted by the electrons as they wiggle through the undulator. > > > Let k=1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 2c > > > E----------------------------F > > *| electrons have traveled 1m, front of X-ray beam 2m > > *|| electrons have traveled 2m, front of X-ray beam 4m > > *||| electrons have traveled 3m, front of X-ray beam 6m > > *|||| electrons have traveled 4m, front of X-ray beam 8m > > etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. > > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > *||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > *|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Difference between front and rear of 2c X-ray beam = 30 m > > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 30 m/(2c) = 50 ns > > > ======================================================= > > > Let k = 0.1, i.e. photons are being emitted at 1.1c > > > E----------------------------F > > *||| > > Difference between front and rear of 1.1c X-ray beam = 3 m > > Total x-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 3 m/(1.1c) = 9.1 ns > > > ======================================================= > > > Let k = 0, i.e. photons are being emitted at c > > E----------------------------F > > *| > > Since the electrons are traveling at 0.9999997c, the difference > > between front and rear of the 1c X-ray beam = 9 um > > Total X-ray pulse duration = 10 fs + 9 um/c = 40 fs > > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Thanks for the explcation. > ====================== > Explcation? > Hmm... Why do those electrons wait until they hit something > stationary before they emit the x-rays? Rays are the noncommittal word between waves and photons. ======================================= You left out your fantasy virtual photons, drosen.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 4 Aug 2010 09:28 On 03.08.2010 22:53, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> 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> > > >>>> 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. >> >> >> How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can >> be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted >> in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged >> particle? >> >> Pathetic indeed. > > Hahahahha! > > Is that charged particle moving inertially? If it is, why should anything it > emits have a 'preferred direction'? Ralph, Ralph, Ralph! :-) Fully qualified physicist, eh? :-) Doctor of science, eh? :-) Why would an inertial charged particle emit anything at all? You have now demonstrated: - That you don't know what synchrotron radiation is. - That you don't know that synchrotron radiation is emitted in a narrow beam. - That you don't know what an undulator (or wiggler) is. - That you don't know that the X-rays in an undulator are emitted in a narrow beam. - That you don't know why the X-rays in an undulator are emitted in a narrow beam. - That you don't know that the X-radiation from an undulator is monochromatic (possibly with harmonics). - That you don't know why the X-radiation from an undulator is monochromatic (possibly with harmonics). - That you have no clue of what we are talking about. Your ignorance has ceased to amaze, but it is still amusing. "Hahahahha!" indeed. Ralph Rabbidge: "The X-rays are emitted when the electrons interact with occasional gas molecules.....whose v>>0 wrt the apparatus frame." What a pathetic ignorant idiot! :-) "Hahahahha!" repeated. -- Paul, still amused after all these years http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: PD on 4 Aug 2010 10:13 On Aug 3, 3:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere..no> > wrote: > > > > >On 01.08.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:13:28 -0700 (PDT), blackhead<larryhar...(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> > >>> 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. > > >How come a fully qualified physicist and Doctor of science can > >be ignorant of the fact that synchrotron radiation is emitted > >in a narrow cone along the direction of motion of the charged > >particle? > > >Pathetic indeed. > > Hahahahha! > > Is that charged particle moving inertially? No. You may want to look up what the source of synchrotron radiation is. It's from an accelerated charge. > If it is, why should anything it > emits have a 'preferred direction'? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 4 Aug 2010 15:00
On Aug 3, 3:59 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > The trouble with you blokes is that you think that because fields cannot be > seen or felt, they have no physical structures. > > I say the stuff fields are made of emits no EM and passes straight through > ordinary matter, which after all is 99.99999999999% empty space. A most interesting statement. Tell me... Assume a perfectly machined, circular disk magnet with a uniform magnetic field lined up along the disk axis. I claim that I set the disk spinning along its axis on perfectly machined, noiseless, vibrationless bearings inside an opaque box in vacuum. Without being allowed to move, touch, or x-ray the box (all similar such technologies are also prohibited) please explain to me how, from measurements of the external magnetic flux or other such electrical or magnetic measurements, you may determine whether the disk is in fact spinning. Jerry |