Re: Perihelion of Mercury question

Jerry wrote:
fritzius@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jerry wrote:
The four papers which John Fox cites as providing good evidence
against emission theories include:

Snip

2) Alvager et al, 1966
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf

Alvager et al do not state how it was determined that the 6 Gev
Gammas were in fact emitted by the fast moving mesons rather
than being emitted by the more or less stationary nuclei that they
had hit.

Via what reaction path would you postulate this alternate source of
high energy gamma rays? The reaction products of protons impinging on
beryllium targets are extremely well characterized, and the decay of
neutral pi mesons is the only known source of high energy gammas.


Sorry for taking so long to get back on this.

I was going to speculate that the emission sources of the 6 GeV
gammas were not necessarily the fast moving mesons, but
am going to evade that issue for now. (Was most likely wrong.)

Alvager et al computed the maximum distance that the gammas
could travel through air before undergoing total extinction to be
approximately 5,000 meters. That extinction distance ultimately
hinges on the electron density in the medium (air in this case).

They had a lead (Pb) collimator in the gamma path. The ratio of
the density of lead to that of air is:

11340 Kg/m^3 / 1.2 Kg/m^3 = 9450/1

If you divide their 5,000 meter extinction distance (in air) by a
factor
of 9450, you might expect to get a roughly comparable extinction
effect over a distance of 0.53 meters in lead. Their collimator was
about 2.5 meters in length along the path of the gammas.

I figure that subject should be thoroughly wrung out.

Snip

If extinction effects are, as you would assert, so dominant as to
invalidate the terrestrial tests of emission theory conducted by
Bab*** and Bergman (1964) and Beckmann and Mandics (1965) despite
use of vacuums resulting in path lengths equivalent to microns of air,
then it is impossible for Sekerin's theories to be valid, since
extinction would prevent accumulation of variable light speed effects
over distances greater than a fraction of an AU.

In my Ritzian Binary Stars article I estimated the extinction distance
for the Crab Pulsar (as a neutron star binary). I did this by comparing

the shape of the double peaked light curve my Sekerin-like computer
simulation for variable stars. (I got Sekerin's 90 degree phase error
fixed too!)

The estimated extinction distance for the Crab Pulsar turned out to
be one fourth the earth-moon distance.

Please see http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie3.htm
The Crab Pulsar stuff is about 2/3rds the way down on the page.


Best regards.

Bob Fritzius

.

Quantcast