I have not had time to follow the discussion re: time dilation vs a Doppler
effect, but if anyone wants to explore the topic further they might try
visiting this site:
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/
They publish a peer-reviewed journal, "Galilean Electrodynamics", which is
dedicated to the topic of the problems with Relativity theory.
Here are two papers which are linked to from the homepage:
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/Hajra_part_1_ckw.pdf
The math in the first paper is way above my pay-grade, but develops the
basic physical principles.
The second paper provides practical examples.
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/Hajra_part_2_ckw.pdf
Abstract
"This paper argues that the results of electro-dynamic experiments performed
on the surface of the moving Earth demand that the surface of the moving
Earth is exactly similar to free space for our description of
electromagnetic phenomena on it. In our opinion, this clearly implies that
in the vicinity of its surface, Earth
carries electric and magnetic fields along with it, just like it carries all
other physical objects with it. We show in
this part of our paper that this simple consideration naturally explains
electro-dynamic phenomena as observed
on the surface of the moving Earth and leaves no room for special relativity
theory in electro-dynamics."
Finally, the work by Haisch/Rueda/Puthoff on the zero-point field I believe
concluded that at relativistic speeds the vacuum presents a form of friction
or 'drag' on matter. could this be an alternate explanation??
-Mark Iverson
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 6:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and Free-electron Laser
John, like before, you are dead set against special relativity and even a
simple example such as this does not convince you. 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.
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.
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-dilati
on-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
