The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: J Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 09:38 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> There is no easy way to measure OWLS from a moving source. It cannot > >> be done in the lab or on earth anywhere, for that matter, because of > >> the atmosphere. Orbiting stars are the obvious answer....and the data > >> from these is pretty convincing in favour of BaTh. > > >If you could build your OWLS onto a computer chip you could put it in a > >vacuum chamber. > > OWLS stands for ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED....as distinct from TWLS. > The difference is very important. Sure. > >If you could make your measurements inside a linear > >accelerator or synchrotron that would give you vacuum. And it's the sort > >of thing that might be available, there might easily be time on a > >working obsolescent synchrotron available, that nobody can figure out a > >great new experiment for but that has not been shut down yet. > > I suspect that the presence of the walls of a linear accelerator or similar > possess fields that constitute a kind of FoR that affects light speed inside. If emission theory only applies to light that is traveling in a perfect vacuum that contains no particles, electric or magnetic fields, or other EM radiation, then I think we can mostly ignore it. > Experiments involving decaying particles are claimed to show that the emitted > light moves at c wrt the lab but none is even verging on being convincing.. You > really need to do a lot of reading. From my limited reading, this looks like a giant mess. It looks like we have two classes of physicists: I. Physicists who want to show that SR or GR is real. II. Physicists who assume that SR and particularly GR is real. The first group comes up with stories about experiments that confirm relativity. The second group does two different things. II A. Estimate things that are hard to measure by using relativity. II B. Estimate things that are hard to measure without using relativity. In either case, sometimes the results are plausible and sometimes they aren't. When they are plausible then it stops there, they use their estimates for whatever they intended. If challenged about not using relativity, come up with an explanation why classical methods get good enough results this time. When the results are not plausible then we have: II A 1. Announce that something strange is happening, some new phenomenon that needs an explanation. Perhaps suggest an explanation. II B 1. Recompute everything using relativity. If the result is plausible stop there. If not, go to II A 1. Something about this procedure leaves me with a nameless doubt. > >> The plain fact is, most 'variable' stars do NOT vary in brightness at > >> all. Their fast light moves up on the slower, causing bunching and an > >> apparent cyclic variation in brightness. > >> Astronomy has been completely fooled by Einstein's stupid second > >> postulate. When the truth is finally accepted, there will be lots of > >> red faces and the burning of 100 years of astonomy publications. > > >That sounds plausible, but what you can show is that the data is > >compatible with your theory. Harder to show that the data is > >incompatible with everybody else's theory, especially since there is so > >much we don't know about stars. So it won't convince people until > >they're ready to consider your theory. > > I gave you few exampes of how brightness variations can result from differences > in light speed from an orbiting star.www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg > > The two that are most striking are those that are typical of cepheids and those > that appear like eclipsing binaries. These curves just happens to turn out > that way due to orbit eccentricity and yaw angle. > You can do your own investigation with my very comprehensive program:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe You're preaching to the credulous here. I'm quite ready to accept that the data is compatible with your explanation. I'm just pointing out that this is not enough to convince people who aren't ready to consider it. It's like, say that somebody came to you with some astronomical data that he could explain if he assumes a certain modification of Newton's First Law. Would you look at his data and decide that Newton was wrong about that? Well, relativity isn't like the first law, it isn't a definition. But a lot of people treat it like that. It's like, if a business finds that a lot of money is missing and the books don't make sense, they might suspect their bookkeeper of embezzling. They will not seriously consider the idea that maybe pixies appear during the night and spread magic pixie dust around, take money and change the books. The new explanation may be nothing like magic pixie dust but to them it will seem that way until they find a solid reason why they can't keep their current beliefs. But then, you've seen this in practice repeatedly for a long time. > >"Some things must be seen to be believed. Most things must be believed > >to be seen." "Some things must be seen to be believed. Most things must be believed to be seen." > >> The fact is, there is no available data that can show whether or not > >> c+v light reflects off a mirror at c wrt the mirror or at the incident > >> speed. > > >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. > > The MMX is a straightforward example of BaTh. There is no argument. 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. Yes. What if you use sunlight at dawn and dusk, etc? Here is the basic problem: if you travel at 60 kph for 1 hour, and then travel at 80 kph for 1 hour, your average speed is 70 kph. But if you travel at 60 kph for 70k, and then you travel at 80 kph for 70k, your average speed is about 68.57 kph. If you go at c+v one way and come back the same distance at c-v, it doesn't average out. If course, if you were paying attention to 1/speed instead of speed, then it would average out. ;) > I have shown how BaTh explains Sagnac perfectly well and at the same time > shown why Sagnac refutes SR. > > BaTh doesn't have an explanation for the Fizeau's 'aether drag' experiment for > the simple reason that nothing is known about the phase shift at each > collision.
From: J Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 10:20 "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote > > 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. > seehttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm I looked at this one. The author quotes Sagnac's conclusion and then agrees with it in two sentences. But what he has shown is that one particular ballistic theory is wrong. If light leaves an emitter at c +v and then it keeps velocity c+v no matter what direction it travels, after any number of reflections, then it will get no phase change, the velocity difference will exactly cancel out the rotation of the apparatus. But if the light changes speed when it changes direction by reflection, then there will be an interference pattern. If the light changes speed to match the speed it would have had if it had been emitted in that direction in the first place, then the difference will be almost exactly what the other models predict. As it goes around a path to its source from the opposite direction, it will cancel out all of the speed changes except the little bit at the end from the rotation of the sensor. Probably undetectable. Other versions would give a diffraction pattern but probably not the exact same diffraction pattern you'd get with no change in lightspeed. The only one that would give no phase shift at all is the one where the light leaves the emitter at c+v and then keeps that speed no matter what. > andhttp://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath169/kmath169.htm Ditto. > andhttp://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html > andhttp://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf This one tries to calculate the Ritz velocity using a very complicated approach that they do not actually manage to calculate, based only on the initial direction. Then they assume it keeps that speed the entire distance. > > 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. Agreed. Relativity was carefully designed to provide classical results under classical conditions, and there is nothing here that would result in a relativistic difference.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 10:57 "J Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2bd54c23-5907-4a8e-8a43-db1eb4eabca0(a)m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > "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! Google "security tags". Try to leave the store without paying and it sounds the alarm. Microwave it at its resonant frequency and it self-destructs. The Spanish train bombs were detonated by calling a cell phone, because calling a cell phone causes it to turn on its light. Once you have an electrical signal you can do whatever the sick individual wants and he doesn't need to know how cell phones work, just that they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings Half the world is insane and the other half is stupid.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 12:22 "J Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8304fd3b-9561-4d8c-9821-c15efba7c1ad(a)k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote > > 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. > seehttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm I looked at this one. The author quotes Sagnac's conclusion and then agrees with it in two sentences. But what he has shown is that one particular ballistic theory is wrong. If light leaves an emitter at c +v and then it keeps velocity c+v no matter what direction it travels, after any number of reflections, then it will get no phase change, the velocity difference will exactly cancel out the rotation of the apparatus. But if the light changes speed when it changes direction by reflection, then there will be an interference pattern. If the light changes speed to match the speed it would have had if it had been emitted in that direction in the first place, then the difference will be almost exactly what the other models predict. As it goes around a path to its source from the opposite direction, it will cancel out all of the speed changes except the little bit at the end from the rotation of the sensor. Probably undetectable. Other versions would give a diffraction pattern but probably not the exact same diffraction pattern you'd get with no change in lightspeed. The only one that would give no phase shift at all is the one where the light leaves the emitter at c+v and then keeps that speed no matter what. > andhttp://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath169/kmath169.htm Ditto. > andhttp://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html > andhttp://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf This one tries to calculate the Ritz velocity using a very complicated approach that they do not actually manage to calculate, based only on the initial direction. Then they assume it keeps that speed the entire distance. > > 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. Agreed. Relativity was carefully designed to provide classical results under classical conditions, and there is nothing here that would result in a relativistic difference. ============================================== You are agreeing with a bigoted, lying, incompetent idiot.
From: Jonah Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 14:02
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "J Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Agreed. Relativity was carefully designed to provide classical results > under classical conditions, and there is nothing here that would > result in a relativistic difference. > ============================================== > You are agreeing with a bigoted, lying, incompetent idiot. Even if that's true, which in my personal experience so far is not proven, so what? You can't depend on bigoted, lying, incompetent idiots to always be wrong about everything. |