On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> John, like before, you are dead set against special relativity and even a > simple example such as this does not convince you. Correct. It would convince me at least to a point if I could check over everything, or as i say build my own. But even then there are other things I simply do not trust. Unlike you, I believe science has made a massive wrong turn. And as such I simply do not trust what I see ore as propaganda. Another issue is how much of what you have said is an honest direct observation of how the FEL works .vs theory of how it should work mixed with some end results? The point is that since I am certain modern physics has missed the boat I am not going to give it the same weight you would. Just as you might ignore evidence of something that you do not accept or believe in, even if you do not know precisely where the fault lies. You may disregard paranormal research on it's face for instance without considering it carries any weight because you think their view on reality is biased. There is no possible way to get any simpler and more obvious than the > example of the Free-electron laser so it is going to be non productive to > continue this discussion. > Agreed. > > I predict that one day you will convince yourself of the fact that SR is > real. No one else will be able to achieve that goal. > There are too many problems none have come close to solving, too many paradoxes for it to even be possible. It's a non-starter. It is inherently paradoxical and is based on axioms that are both unproven and impossible/unexplained. > > Use the example I have given you to eventually understand where your hang > up lies. It contains the clues that you seek. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 8:50 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> John, this device is real. > > No doubt, so is the Doppler effect, which *will* be present. > >> Read the article carefully and you will understand how the frequency is >> accurately explained by Lorentz contraction. Do you consider that a >> coincidence? > > > That would depend on how the light is measured. > I would again argue that is a sceptic of Cold Fusion (CF) and a believer > would have very different observations of a Cell. > Both would view as it agreeing with their own opinion of reality, > especially if each could adjust the equipment used to gather evidence for > their argument. > > What you must realise is that SR has a great deal of confirmation bias > in interpretation even to the point of fraud as is seen with the experiment > that flew clocks around in jumbo jets. > > I fail to understand why you are so reluctant to accept that this device >> works as described when using Lorentz length contraction to accurately >> calculate the output frequency. > > > I do not trust results since if they decleared that the results > disagreed with SR they would have faced massive opposition and ridicule, > and would have faced massive cognitive dissonance. > > There is so much of SR that is totally paradoxical and unexplained, but > accepted blindly by many. > > The disrespect you have towards challenges to Special Relativity is > precisely why I do not trust evidence that claims to conform to it. > >> > > >> The Doppler ideas that you suggest fail to give the correct answer. > > > They would succeed to give the correct answer if the angle of light is > changed. > > >> I realize it is difficult to accept SR when you have so much invested >> in your belief that it is not real, but you must try hard to get over that >> issue. > > > The issue is that it can't explain it's self coherently. > Paradoxes readily occur that none can explain. > > And there are many experiments that disagree with SR. > > So it makes more sense to me that this experiment is seeing other > effects that DO shift frequency other than the laboratory contracting till > the electron is moving at what it would view as a superluminal velocity > against the non-contracted laboratory. > > Actually it is also easier to consider that the denial that electrons > can't exceed C is causing the scientists to deny that they are actually > exceeding C and that explains the effect. > > By what means is the actual velocity of an electron moving so fast > measured? > > I am not saying I believe the electron IS moving superluminally, but it > would be easier to accept than a paradoxical mutual length contraction of > Lab and electron and the impossibilities that implies. > > >> Also, it does little good to avoid accepting the reality of this >> particular device by stating that you do not have one to test. I bet you >> don't have an LHC either. >> >> And yes, it is hand waving when you claim that the Doppler shift is the >> reason for the up conversion in frequency. It can readily be shown that >> the electrons change velocity a very tiny amount while the output frequency >> changes over a decade. The Doppler shift would therefore be minor whereas >> the device output frequency varies enormously. Explain how this is >> possible with Doppler. I find your statement humorous that the Doppler >> increase is enough to account for the evidence...you are kidding I assume. >> > > If intellectual dishonesty is assumed, the angle can be changed as the > velocity is increased to provide precisely this observation. > >> >> Stick to this system if you really want to understand how SR is >> demonstrated. To muddy the water by diversion to something entirely >> different does not help. The Free-electron x-ray laser is an extremely >> good example that proves special relativity has strong merit. >> can cause >> Why are you reluctant to analyze such a fine demonstration of SR? > > I have already done so. > There are many issues, one is that if Lorentz length contraction alone > explains the frequency, then there is a failure as time dilation must also > be accounted for. > > If the output is an x-ray to the electrons frame, it would be an even > higher frequency in the relatively time dilated lab frame. > > I believe that this is called transverse Doppler, and unlike the Doppler > effect I mentioned previously this is both evidence of time dilation and > IMO a source of a preferred frame in SR. > > This Doppler effect will grow in precisely the way you mention as it's > magnitude is related to relativistic time dilation. > > Unlike the other Doppler effect this one also in not dependant on angle. > And while I consider it absurd, IF Lorentz length contraction alone is > sufficient, then this is a disproof of SR. > > This device can answer many of the questions that you have posed. It >> will likely be my favorite example supporting SR from this point forth and >> you would be wise to rely upon it to enhance your understanding of SR as >> well. One simple device that demonstrates both time dilation and length >> contraction at the same time is remarkable. >> > > Didn't you initially claim that length contraction alone could account for > the result? > Now time dilation (transverse Doppler?) is required? > > And if transverse Doppler is in the mix, then there is a preferred frame > as the transverse Doppler component can be studied at different velocities > to learn the frame the photon originated from. > > It seems that there is agreement for my assertion about time dilation > changing the frequency of light: > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/55520/why-is-there-no-time-dilation-for-frequency-of-a-wave > > So if this is the case, it is clear that if one moves differently > relative to a source of light this component would go to zero when the > velocity matches the source. even under the other forms of Doppler this > would be pronounced if a graph was made from photon frequency over > different velocities. > > This is fine if you accept the photon has a preferred frame, that of > it's emitter. > But that is not a comfortable conclusion for SR. > > John >
