The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 18:09 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT), J Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"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. ....they try to use the rotating frame and fall into a trap. > >But if the light changes speed when it changes direction by >reflection, then there will be an interference pattern. No that's unnecessary. >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 Both of these are wrong as I have pointed out before. >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. Here is the simple explanation of a four mirror Sagnac. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg >> > 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. Sagnac refutes SR because it requires that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 18:11 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:27:18 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"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. The distance between the dots doesn't change with speed. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 18:41 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:38:59 -0700 (PDT), J Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. There is a threshold density (The Wilson Threshold Density, WDT) below which the inverse squar law breaks down and space starts to feature holes of genuine 'nothing'....like foam plastic. Much of remote space lies below the WDT. Of course, when a photon passes through a hole, its fields temporarily destroy the 'nothingness'. Inside those holes, light behaves 100% ballistically. Outside, light still behaves almost 100% ballistically except in the vicinity of large masses, which are surrounded by much stronger Wilsonian 'EM Spheres of Influence'. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/EMspheres.exe >> 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, there has never been an experiiment that clearly supports Einstein's silly theory. Many people have tried and are many are still desperate to prove him right....but nobody has yet done it. Similarly, nobody has ever convincingly refuted BaTh. >> >> 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. � Incidentally, with all that previous discussion about light reflecting from mirrors, I thought of a possible OWLS experiment using a moving source. Arrange two mirrors facing each other and angle a laser beam just enough to make it bounce many times between the two before exiting on the opposite side. Then move one mirror rapidly towards the other for a brief period so the laser beam hits it a c+v. At every reflection there is a doubling if the 'v' bit. If there are 100 reflections the light emerges at c+100v. If the laser beam was pulsed at high frequency, the speed change should show up as an irregularity in the pulse arrival rate in addition to the one due to path length decrease. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 19:11 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote in message news:ZI9qm.36743$gx.13268(a)newsfe28.ams2... > ============================================== > You are agreeing with a bigoted, lying, incompetent idiot. Obviously as I am none of those things you are talking about yourself or Henry .. as you've both CLEARLY exhibited those behaviors regularly.
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 19:16
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:q0uia59sf6qsb65ji5bhti8oihkfaekm9k(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT), J Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > ...they try to use the rotating frame and fall into a trap. No trap >> >>But if the light changes speed when it changes direction by >>reflection, then there will be an interference pattern. > > No that's unnecessary. Given that your analysis when the speeds do NOT change is wrong, you're not in a position to comment. The speed change would result in SOME sagnac effect, but as you also get it with (say) 4 mirrors, the first reflection slow down won't happen until the light is about 1/4 of the way around, and so you woulnd't get it slowed enough to get the full Sagnac effect. >>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 > > Both of these are wrong as I have pointed out before. Your own analysis is wrong .. you're not in a position to criticize others ... especially as you have NOT provided any valid criticism of them, other than saying their wrong. >>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. > > Here is the simple explanation of a four mirror Sagnac. > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg >>> > 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. > > Sagnac refutes SR because it requires that the rays move at c+v and c-v > wrt the > source. Which does NOT refute SR .. as you've clearly had explained to your many many many many times. But you still persis with your lies. Henry .. you're nothing but lying scum. |