The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 17:27 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > > > >> You can depend on an old 33 RPM record playing turntable not > >> to depend on SR/GR, but the strobe light on the side used to verify > >> its speed by illuminating regularly spaced marks on the rim meshes > >> perfectly with Sagnac. > > > > It turned out I had seen that, I didn't realise that was the one you > > were presenting again until I saw it again. > > > > So what is the take-home message here? Something about strobes.... > > Something about the sum of two traveling wave making a standing wave > > or a slow traveling wave.... > > Simple, isn't it? > If you DEFINE wavelength = speed/frequency then increasing speed > has to increase the wavelength. You can't change the 50Hz (60 Hz USA) > frequency of the strobe light, so by your definition the wavelength > changes. Yet that is ridiculous, nobody is repainting the marks on the > side of the turntable, so your definition must be wrong or the > distance between marks isn't the wavelength. Yes! You change the speed and you change the frequency, the wavelength stays the same! > Yet the teeth around a gear look awfully like a travelling wave to me. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif > > So let's see if you can think. You tell me what the take-home message > is. Sometimes it's frequency that changes when the speed changes. Sometimes it's wavelength. Sometimes it's both.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 17:25 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:37:48 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"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: >> >>>> >>>> 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. A change in speed does not necessarily mean a great deal of dispersion and scattering. Anyway, in the case of a binary pair, most unification takes place in their near vicinity. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 17:32 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090910172718.12573f9b.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> > >> >> You can depend on an old 33 RPM record playing turntable not >> >> to depend on SR/GR, but the strobe light on the side used to verify >> >> its speed by illuminating regularly spaced marks on the rim meshes >> >> perfectly with Sagnac. >> > >> > It turned out I had seen that, I didn't realise that was the one you >> > were presenting again until I saw it again. >> > >> > So what is the take-home message here? Something about strobes.... >> > Something about the sum of two traveling wave making a standing wave >> > or a slow traveling wave.... >> >> Simple, isn't it? >> If you DEFINE wavelength = speed/frequency then increasing speed >> has to increase the wavelength. You can't change the 50Hz (60 Hz USA) >> frequency of the strobe light, so by your definition the wavelength >> changes. Yet that is ridiculous, nobody is repainting the marks on the >> side of the turntable, so your definition must be wrong or the >> distance between marks isn't the wavelength. > > Yes! You change the speed and you change the frequency, the wavelength > stays the same! You can't change the frequency, it's fixed at 50 Hz European and 60 Hz USA. Try not to be ridiculous. > >> Yet the teeth around a gear look awfully like a travelling wave to me. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif >> >> So let's see if you can think. You tell me what the take-home message >> is. > > Sometimes it's frequency that changes when the speed changes. Sometimes > it's wavelength. Sometimes it's both. You can't change the frequency and you can't change the marks around the turntable. You can only change the speed from 33 RPM to 45 RPM to 78 RPM. Try not to be fuckin' stupid.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 17:42 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:jiria597qv1d7amkc43goso8ufespc8e1j(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:37:48 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> > wrote: > >> >>"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: >>> > >>>>> >>>>> 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. > > A change in speed does not necessarily mean a great deal of dispersion and > scattering. Anyway, in the case of a binary pair, most unification takes > place > in their near vicinity. End of Wilson's time compression, he never made that discovery. In his desperate attempt to support his crank unifuckation theory he's contradicted yourself. He is fuckin' senile. Poor old ozzie sheep shagger, his brain no longer functions. Get off the plonk, Wilson. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStarGR.GIF Wilson accepts Einstein's GR time dilation and SR second postulate.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 17:44
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:18:45 -0700 (PDT), J Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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? There is not experimental evidence that clarifies this question but one would think intuitively that if light arrives ar a mirror with relative speed c+v it will reflect at the same relative speed. However, if you look at thoeries about reflection, it is possible that the mirror acts like a new source and the reflected light moves at c relative to the mirror and NOT c+v. If that were the case, one might also expect the incident angle to be different from the reflected angle.. >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. Well I wasn't saying anything about doppler shift. BaTh defines light frequency as the 'number of wavecrests arriving per second' a quantity that is clearlt speed dependent. Doppler shift in BaTh is just (c+v)/c > >> 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? No. My theory is still evolving. That's why I have to keep considering the criticisms from the relativist morons here. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |