The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 10 Sep 2009 01:07 Inertial wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message > news:0eqga5h9kjh3dfgt026cmoiaj5rv1igu2k(a)4ax.com... > >> OWLS stands for ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED....as distinct from TWLS. >> The difference is very important. > > > Indeed it is > > Assuming one can measure distances, then one can work out the TWLS using > (the equivalent of) a clock at the source, and with a mirror reflecting > the light back to the source from a fixed distance, and working out the > time taken. > > Assuming one can measure distances and synchronize clocks, then one can > work out the OWLS using (the equivalent of) a pair of clocks, one at the > source and one at a fixed distance, and working out the time taken from > the clock differences. > > The issue then is how one ensures that two clocks are in sync. > > One way is to synchronize them together at the midpoint of the > experiment, and then uniformly move them away to their respective > positions. > > Another way is to send a known speed message between them, and > synchronize from that, based on the speed of the message and the time it > takes to get there. > > All such experiments on OWLS measurements have shown it to be the same > in all directions. > > SR is based on the speed of light being a definite value, and so the > same in all direction in any given inertial frame of reference. > >> The MMX is a straightforward example of BaTh. There is no argument. > > > Indeed, ballistic theories explain MMX result just as well as SR and LET > do. The notion of a simple fixed aether, though, is refuted by it (and > subsequent variations) > >> Nothing >> could be simpler. All the components of the apparatus are M.A.R so the >> light >> from the source moves at c wrt them all no matter how the bloody thing is >> orientated. >> I have shown how BaTh explains Sagnac perfectly well > > > Except that analysis is flawed. A correct ballistic analysis gives you > a zero phase difference, as has been explained many times. > > eg. > see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > and http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath169/kmath169.htm > and http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html > and http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > >> and at the same time >> shown why Sagnac refutes SR. > > > Which, of course, is also incorrect, as Sagnac does not in any way > refute SR and never has. It shows that the light speed, in the inertial > frame of reference, is not affected by the speed of the source, and so > is consistent with both SR and aether theories, but not with ballistic / > emission theories. > > You forget that Ralph/Henri/Henry lies a lot when he is shown to be wrong. He hates being shown to be a fool and does not realize that lying only makes him seem more of a fool.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 03:04 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090909220430.581ed6fd.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Wolfgang Pauli claimed that the Michelson/Morley experiment, the Sagnac > experiment, the Fitzeau experiment, and some experiment done by > Majorana, together, would disprove some versions of emission theory. > Each of them involved bouncing light off mirrors and looking at varying > diffraction patterns -- some of them found those and some didn't. Each > different version of emission theory has a chance to predict varying > results for these experiments, and when they differ they can't all be > right. Pauli claimed that c+v reflected as c was disproven by these, but > that Ritz's version, c+v reflected at whatever speed the source would > have emitted in that direction, was not. Then he went on to claim other > ways to disprove that one. Velocity is distance/time. If it takes one unit of time for light to travel one unit of distance to reach the mirror, then it takes one unit of time for light to travel the same distance back from the mirror. t0: s--------------------------------------------m one unit of distance/one unit of time. Now Pauli can argue all he wants, if s and m are moving so that at some time later (t1) we have t1: s'.................s------------------------------------------->m, t2: s".................s'.................s<-------------------------------------------m, if it takes one unit of time for light to travel one unit of distance to reach the mirror, then it takes one unit of time for light to travel the same distance back from the mirror. Velocity is distance/time. If the distance s---m is x, the time s---m is t, then the distance m---s is -x and the time m---s is t. If the distance s---s' is x', the time s---s' is t, then the distance s---s" is -2x' and the time s---s" is t. The car you see in your rear view mirror remains the same distance from you and a cop's radar gun in your car will record its speed as zero. Referring to "other experiments" is just so much fuckin' handwaving and hearsay.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 03:42 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:3poga5tpd4oqrca78ma27fek380ldshpi2(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:29:45 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:p3jga59vdpuh6mnhp7soalk0g0lrmnd9hm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:23:01 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>>>news:6p9ga5t7slj9f7ss550i5fnvsf2all9n6r(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:29:57 +0100, "Androcles" >>>>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>>>>>news:um8ea597kf8vasq0t7v2uho6ur14nvuf31(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:11:00 +0100, "Androcles" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> My method uses the maximum orbit speed. It gets that from the >>>>>>> observed >>>>>>> value >>>>>>> WHICH IS THE REAL ONE x COS PITCH. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are not worth arguing with. >>>>>>observed value = orbital value * cos(pitch) as you say, so >>>>>> >>>>>>Real world: >>>>>>orbital value = observed value / cos(pitch) >>>>>>Wilson's world: >>>>>>orbital value = observed value / magic unifuckation >>>>>>End of fuckin' story, you are crazy. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, I now see your grounds for complaint. Why didn't you explain this >>>>> before. >>>>> >>>>> I have previously stated the answer to this problem. >>>>> >>>>> When light changes speed, >>>> >>>>Light doesn't change speed. You are fuckin' crazy. >>> >>> What happens when it enters glass? >> >>Light from distant stars hasn't gone through glass since >>Ptolemy's crystal spheres stopped carrying the planets. >>Your ancient theory was debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, >>Kepler and Newton. > > Light changes speed when it enters any medium Light from distant stars hasn't gone through glass since Ptolemy's crystal spheres stopped carrying the planets. Your ancient theory was debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 05:21 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:42:40 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:3poga5tpd4oqrca78ma27fek380ldshpi2(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:29:45 +0100, "Androcles" >>>>>> I have previously stated the answer to this problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> When light changes speed, >>>>> >>>>>Light doesn't change speed. You are fuckin' crazy. >>>> >>>> What happens when it enters glass? >>> >>>Light from distant stars hasn't gone through glass since >>>Ptolemy's crystal spheres stopped carrying the planets. >>>Your ancient theory was debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, >>>Kepler and Newton. >> >> Light changes speed when it enters any medium > >Light from distant stars hasn't gone through glass since >Ptolemy's crystal spheres stopped carrying the planets. >Your ancient theory was debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, >Kepler and Newton. There is enough stuff in 'empty space' to affect light speed. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 05:38
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:04:12 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:20090909220430.581ed6fd.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> Wolfgang Pauli claimed that the Michelson/Morley experiment, the Sagnac >> experiment, the Fitzeau experiment, and some experiment done by >> Majorana, together, would disprove some versions of emission theory. >> Each of them involved bouncing light off mirrors and looking at varying >> diffraction patterns -- some of them found those and some didn't. Each >> different version of emission theory has a chance to predict varying >> results for these experiments, and when they differ they can't all be >> right. Pauli claimed that c+v reflected as c was disproven by these, but >> that Ritz's version, c+v reflected at whatever speed the source would >> have emitted in that direction, was not. Then he went on to claim other >> ways to disprove that one. > >Velocity is distance/time. >If it takes one unit of time for light to travel one unit of distance >to reach the mirror, then it takes one unit of time for light to travel >the same distance back from the mirror. >t0: s--------------------------------------------m > one unit of distance/one unit of time. >Now Pauli can argue all he wants, if s and m are moving so that at some >time later (t1) we have >t1: s'.................s------------------------------------------->m, >t2: >s".................s'.................s<-------------------------------------------m, >if it takes one unit of time for light to travel one unit of distance >to reach the mirror, then it takes one unit of time for light to travel >the same distance back from the mirror. >Velocity is distance/time. >If the distance s---m is x, the time s---m is t, then the distance m---s >is -x >and the time m---s is t. >If the distance s---s' is x', the time s---s' is t, then the distance s---s" >is -2x' >and the time s---s" is t. That's not what he's talking about. Are you drunk again? >The car you see in your rear view mirror remains the same distance >from you and a cop's radar gun in your car will record its speed as >zero. >Referring to "other experiments" is just so much fuckin' handwaving >and hearsay. > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |