The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 05:37 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:m6hha51u1jfmrna2112r3mcmfdmi8qb50i(a)4ax.com... > 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. No fog, no "stuff". There is NOT enough fog in 'empty space' to affect light speed, except here. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070218.html You are no scientist, you fuckin' guess and that's as stupid as Einstein.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 06:08 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:k6iha5dk8de9kedqt2e304kou4e4icglnt(a)4ax.com... > 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? Yes it is. You are drunk as usual. >>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..
From: J Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 08:18 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > When light changes speed, each photon's intrinsic absolute wavelength also > changes accordingly. For instance, if a photon decelerates, its wavecrests move > closer together, so their flow rate remains the same....like cars on a highway > in different speed zones. That makes perfect sense. So by your view, when light bounces off a mirror and changes its direction, it gets the speed it would have had if it had been emitted in that direction in the first place? And its frequency stays the same, but its wavelength changes to match? That fits my prejudices, and it looks consistent. So if the source is going forward at v relative to a couple of observers, one in front and one behind, the forward observer will find the light traveling at c+v and will get the standard doppler shift? But if he has a big mirror and sends the same light to the back observer, that one will get the light at c-v just like light that came to him straight from the source, but now the frequency stays dopplered and the wavelength is adjusted? No, after I think about it I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. > I see a photon as something like a coiled spring with no elastic properties. It > expands or shrinks with a speed change. Its intrinsic ABSOLUTE wavelength is > the distance between coils. (the 'spring' is possibly a standing wave running > the length of the 'quantum') I like that image. I'm not clear how to apply it. Do you have a link to an explanation of the fundamental relationships of your theory?
From: J Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 08:27 "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > I give technicians credit for converting my drawings to working electronics. > It doesn't make them engineers just because they can use a soldering iron. > They don't realise the value of every resistor, capacitor and inductor has > to be calculated or your transistor radio might radiate like a microwave > oven until it quits in a puff of smoke. This is off topic, but I just imagined that this effect could be useful. Say, for electronics used for espionage. You sen the device a special signal and it turns on the circuit that causes the device to create heat as fast as it can, hopefully leaving behind a melted, charred mess. No explosives required!
From: J Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 08:40
hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >There is no easy way to determine distance, eccentricity, major axis or > >inclination. > > Distance can now be measured quite accurately up to about 1000LYs. > > I can measure eccentricity and yaw by matching a star's brightness curve. > > >All have to be estimated from other considerations. Period is measurable, > > Not neccessarily for very distant objects. What is observed might be subject to > doppler shift or time compression. Do you believe in time compression, or are you just pointing out that other people do? > >mass can be estimated using Kepler's third law. > > It cannot. A satellite's orbit is independent of its mass. > > >From that we can estimate the axis. > > ...bloody rough estimate... > > >The eccentricity could be estimated from the velocity curve > >except that the velocity curve is contaminated by cos(inclination). > > If you use MY definition of pitch and YAW angle...the edge on one....ALL radial > velocities are multiplied by the same cos factor...and so the ratios of all > speeds around the orbit is the same for all inclinations. > > Of course you don't know how much to rotate yer bloody 'ead...so the best way > to do it is via our simulated brightness curves. > If astronomers would wake up to the Einstein hoax their lives would be much > easier. Will you tell them or will I? I'm not sure what the point is about this disagreement. To show that the data is compatible with your theory, you can take the known data and choose the values for the unknowns that result in the best fit to the known data. If the fit is good then you have proven the compatibility. Then if it turns out that some of the parameters don't matter for producing the data -- perhaps a sum or product of them do, but the individual parameters can vary -- then it doesn't matter which values you pick for them. Choose your best fit and then publish the result with the formula for them and with a couple of representative samples. So why is this variation in methods worth arguing about? Don't you both get results that fit equally well? If not, how do you decide what is most important in fitting the model to the data? |