The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 10:14 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090924093107.36c952a4.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> Neither you nor jonah have shown how a difference in distance >> >> travelled in the same tiem, as observed by some observer (not >> >> co-moving with the detector) can results in this. It doesn't do it >> >> for moving oscillators, it doesn't do it for waves. >> > >> > Well, we can't use the water wave model because the waves travel at >> > the same speed in water. >> >> Unless you move the water. One can imagine the 'water' as being >> something that moves with the inertial frame of the source. > > You're right! Mmmhmm > OK, imagine that. You have an annulus I know its childish, but that word always makes me smile :) > full of water. You make a wave at > one side of it and watch the waves reach the exact opposite side. They > are in phase. Yeup. So have a little wave maker fixed inside the annulus ring making waves going clockwise and anti-clockwaise around the ring > At the other side (because water is bulky and we don't want our emitter > and our detector interfering with each other) you have a little gap in > the annulus leading to a rectangular container where you observe the > waves. Each time a wave arrives at the gap it pushes a little wave > through the gap which spreads out in a semicircle in the other > container. Fine .. so you can see if the waves are in phase. Analogous with Sagnac > Then you spin the annulus and get the water moving at some speed v that > is much less than the speed of water waves. So the water and the annulus are moving. > If you make waves, they will have the same wavelength and the same > frequency relative to the moving water, and they will reach the opposite > side at the same time. They will still be in phase. Yeup And if the wave-maker moves, but not the water, you'll get a phase difference. That would be what aether theory says happens. > Agreed so far? Yeup > Since water waves do not work the way my emission theory says that light > works, How DOES your emissions theory say light works? > we need two emitters for this next part. There's not two emitters in Sagnac. So this is not longer analgous. > Put a wall between them > so they don't both make waves in both directions. I'll call the speed of > water waves in the annulus w. The speed of the waves relative to me is > then w+v and w-v. Reduce the frequency of the one that makes forward > waves to w/(w+v). Increase the frequency of the one that makes backward > waves to w/(w-v). So what makes this happen in Sagnac .. there's just one source. And what if this was a straight tube, and not an annulus. The same situation then is just nonsense. And as far as the light etc is concerned, at the time it is emitted it doesn't know if its going to be going along a straight tube or around an annulus. So all the following is just pure nonsense in terms of a Sagnac experiment... > When they arrive at the other side they will be out of phase. But what > happens to the speed of the waves when they arrive at the gap ? The > fast ones have to slow down and the slow ones speed up. So they will be > at different frequency inside the detector, because the frequency will > stay the same when the speed changes. The model starts to break down. > > And when I imagine the water wave traveling around the annulus I start > to boggle. It seems like it's doing a lot of internal reflections and > such. Real unclear. The two sides aren't symmetric because the rotation > is faster for one side than the other and that would affect the > reflections. > > It's harder to see than I'd hoped, but still it isn't completely offbase > as a model of the model. Yes .. it is > It might point to flaws. I see that I wasn't > really imagining the innards of the detector rotating with the rest of > it. That could make my thinking go wrong. MMmhmmm :):) >> > And we can't use the sound model because sound waves travel at the >> > same speed in air. >> >> And sound is not a transverse wave. > > I doubt that matters. Light could just as easily be a compression wave, > it's just that polarization matters. You can have electric fields that > are only in the x direction and not in the y direction, but we don't > know how to get air pressure only in the x direction and not the y > direction. Since our analysis isn't deep enough to consider those > directional effects then it won't make any difference, unless of course > they actually do matter and part of the problem is that we're ignoring > them. > >> > SR says that light always travels at the same speed in vacuum, and >> > if that's right then emission theories all have to be wrong. >> >> SR doesn't really care what light does or how it does it, as long as >> it does it at c. > > Yes, that's what I mean. Oh, I see. I was thinking of emission > theories as being theories that add the source's velocity to the light. There's ballistic that has light behaving like a particle, and emission where light travels at c relative to the source (at the time of emission). Aether theories have light as a wave (or a particle) that always moves at c wrt the aether itself (and not the source). SR doesn't care if light is little particles or waves or what it is. SR also is quite happy as long as light moves at c, whether that is wrt the source or some aether. The reason SR doesn't mind is that its velocity composition formula means that if you DO (for emission theories) combine the speed of light wrt the source with the speed of the source wrt the observer, you still end up with c. And similarly, for aether theroies, when you combine the speed of light wrt the aether with the speed of the aether wrt the observer, you still get c. > That's the obvious thing to do for particles, and less obvious but quite > possible for waves that don't have a medium to control their velocity. > But you're thinking of the important part of emission theories as the > idea that it's particles and not waves. No .. thats more ballistic theory. But it doesn't matter which way you go .. its about the speed being relative to the source and simply adding. > I don't care about that, waves > that don't need a medium can travel at different speeds just like > particles can. Should we use a different name for the idea that light > travels at c relative to its source, which is nothte same as the idea > that light is made of particles that travel at c relative to their > source? I don't care if its particles or not. You still don't get a phase difference in sagnac .. unless you have bizarre mirrors. >> > Once you do get waves that travel for different distances in the >> > same time, then you can get them to interfere just like waves that >> > travel the same speed but arrive at different times. Would it help >> > to describe the math? >> >> That would help. > > I'll look at that. > >> > I suspect it would not -- after all, you are objecting to the >> > concept >> >> NO .. I'm objecting to the fact that you have not shown a model that >> has a phase difference. > > I have described a model that does that, but it might be > self-contradictory in ways I haven't noticed. It doesn't describe what is happening in sagnac. You have to have two different light source with different frequencies to get a phase differences (only then you'll get continue shifting in phase difference over time due to the differing frequency)
From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 10:57 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090924095243.383fc3f7.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> So its like a wave, where frequency varies with speed and >> >wavelength> does not. No phase shift for that one. >> > >> > ?? Oh. I thought it did. That's disappointing. >> > >> > Let me try that in the nonrotating frame. >> >> Fine >> >> > One side travels at speed c+v. >> >> Yeup >> >> > One side travels at speed c-v. >> >> Yeup >> >> Gees .. how many weeks have we been saying that for now >> >> > They meet at the detector, and (to make the numbers easy I have a >> > sagnac ring that is one light-second long) >> > they meet after 1 second. >> >> Fine >> >> > In that time one of them has traveled distance c+v meters. >> > The other has traveled distance c-v meters. >> >> Yeup >> >> > Constant wavelength lambda. >> >> Yeup .. measured as one always does from where the source is NOW .. no >> where it was THEN >> >> > So get the phase by dividing distance by lambda. >> > One of them has phase c+v/lambda >> > One of them has phase c-v/lambda >> >> Wrong >> >> > Where did I go wrong? >> >> Oh dear .. do I have to draw it for you again? >> >> D1...........S...........D2 >> .............s............ >> >> .D1......../'\S/'\........D2 >> .............s............. >> >> ..D1..../'\./'\S/'\./'\....D2 >> .............s.............. >> >> ...D1/'\./'\./'\S/'\./'\./'\D2 >> .............s............... >> >> See the same length wavelengths? >> See the two different distances s..D1, s..D2? >> >> D1/'\./'\./ >> .........s >> >> /'\S/'\./'\./'\D2 >> s............... >> >> But the rays arrive in sync at D1 and D2 >> And are out of sync at s >> >> Why? >> >> Because when you count wavelengths, you go back from the current >> position of leading edge to where the source is NOW (not where it was >> in the past) >> >> That is because the source is where each new part of the cycle is >> emitted .. it is not emitted from where the source was originally (s) >> >> The trail of same-length-wavelength follows behind the leading edge of >> the ray. > > ?? Imagine that it's a particle which rotates. OK > The particle is emitted > at one spot OK > and it travels c+v or c-v distance, rotating proportional > to distance. So light is like a rolling wheel, so the distance between cycles of the wheel is fixed wrt the surface it is rolling on. It rotates faster when it travels faster. So its frequency and wavelength and speed when rolling away from a source would be the same regardless of direction. Other observers moving wrt the source will see a different speed, but the same frequency and different wavelength So in the case of Sagnac the 'balls' are rolling on a surface which is moving in the same direction as the source was at the moment of emission ... and rolling with speed c all the time. On that surface, the paths are not circular. Have to do some math to work things out > Then it will be out of phase. What is it you object to > about this? My first thought is that they would be out of phase .. but until I am awake to do the math, I don't know for sure :)
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 14:03 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> So its like a wave, where frequency varies with speed and > >> >wavelength> does not. No phase shift for that one. > >> > > >> > ?? Oh. I thought it did. That's disappointing. > >> > > >> > Let me try that in the nonrotating frame. > >> > >> Fine > >> > >> > One side travels at speed c+v. > >> > >> Yeup > >> > >> > One side travels at speed c-v. > >> > >> Yeup > >> > >> Gees .. how many weeks have we been saying that for now > >> > >> > They meet at the detector, and (to make the numbers easy I have a > >> > sagnac ring that is one light-second long) > >> > they meet after 1 second. > >> > >> Fine > >> > >> > In that time one of them has traveled distance c+v meters. > >> > The other has traveled distance c-v meters. > >> > >> Yeup > >> > >> > Constant wavelength lambda. > >> > >> Yeup .. measured as one always does from where the source is NOW .. > >no> where it was THEN > >> > >> > So get the phase by dividing distance by lambda. > >> > One of them has phase c+v/lambda > >> > One of them has phase c-v/lambda > >> > >> Wrong > >> > >> > Where did I go wrong? > >> > >> Oh dear .. do I have to draw it for you again? > >> > >> D1...........S...........D2 > >> .............s............ > >> > >> .D1......../'\S/'\........D2 > >> .............s............. > >> > >> ..D1..../'\./'\S/'\./'\....D2 > >> .............s.............. > >> > >> ...D1/'\./'\./'\S/'\./'\./'\D2 > >> .............s............... > >> > >> See the same length wavelengths? > >> See the two different distances s..D1, s..D2? > >> > >> D1/'\./'\./ > >> .........s > >> > >> /'\S/'\./'\./'\D2 > >> s............... > >> > >> But the rays arrive in sync at D1 and D2 > >> And are out of sync at s > >> > >> Why? > >> > >> Because when you count wavelengths, you go back from the current > >> position of leading edge to where the source is NOW (not where it > >was> in the past) > >> > >> That is because the source is where each new part of the cycle is > >> emitted .. it is not emitted from where the source was originally > >(s)> > >> The trail of same-length-wavelength follows behind the leading edge > >of> the ray. > > > > ?? Imagine that it's a particle which rotates. > > OK > > > The particle is emitted > > at one spot > > OK > > > and it travels c+v or c-v distance, rotating proportional > > to distance. > > So light is like a rolling wheel, so the distance between cycles of > the wheel is fixed wrt the surface it is rolling on. It rotates > faster when it travels faster. So its frequency and wavelength and > speed when rolling away from a source would be the same regardless of > direction. Other observers moving wrt the source will see a different > speed, but the same frequency and different wavelength > > So in the case of Sagnac the 'balls' are rolling on a surface which is > > moving in the same direction as the source was at the moment of > emission ... and rolling with speed c all the time. On that surface, > the paths are not circular. Have to do some math to work things out > > > Then it will be out of phase. What is it you object to > > about this? > > My first thought is that they would be out of phase .. but until I am > awake to do the math, I don't know for sure :) I'm not ignoring you, I'm just facing a deadline with some last-minute complications.
From: Androcles on 24 Sep 2009 18:42
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:pjpnb5hntbuvps5b2v6p7ukrr0uhqtjv64(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:03:05 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>> > Then it will be out of phase. What is it you object to >>> > about this? >>> >>> My first thought is that they would be out of phase .. but until I am >>> awake to do the math, I don't know for sure :) >> >>I'm not ignoring you, > > I think it's high time you did. This girl has the IQ of a chimp. She is > deliberately trying to waste your time. > That's ok, he's a waste of anyone's time. They both have chimp IQs. |