The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 19:23 "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! > >> 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. That's correct in general. Look at the case for sound waves .. a change in relative motion between the source and observer (or should that be listener :)) sometimes gives you a change in wavelength and sometimes not.
From: Jonah Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 20:27 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > 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 I see! And that's what Androcles was hinting at too! Very good! I'm laughing, that's delightful. But now I am having trouble with it. The wavelength should stay the same, yes. But the frequency stays the same too. The wavelength is the same because you don't measure wavelength back toward the source when it emitted the wave, you measure it in the direction of the wavefront. So in a time interval t units long, one side emits n cycles at speed c+v and the other side emits n cycles at speed c-v. Both arrive at the sensors at the same time. During the time for one wave to pass from the c+v side, one wave will pass from the c-v side too, slower. I don't see that this gives us a phase shift or a frequency difference or anything for an interferometer to pick up. It looks to me like the version that has the light emitted at some speed, call it c+v, and it stays that speed despite any reflections or refractions, is probably not compatible with Sagnac. But there are lots of other versions to try out, and I doubt any of your results depend on reflections. > >> > 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. Just as they misinterpreted yours, I think you're misinterpreting them. They can have the rays move at c but one of them has to travel farther because of the movement of the mirrors etc.
From: Jonah Thomas on 10 Sep 2009 20:41 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "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! > > You can't change the frequency, it's fixed at 50 Hz European and 60 Hz > USA. Try not to be ridiculous. You don't change the frequency of the strobe. But you change the frequency that the marks go by, when you change the speed. > >> 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. You can't change the marks carved into the turntable but when you change the turntable speed you change the speed that the marks go by. Marks per second, marks per minute, that's frequency. And that change in frequency changes the standing wave you get with the strobe.
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 20:50 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090910202739.1484e1ef.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> 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 > > I see! And that's what Androcles was hinting at too! Very good! I'm > laughing, that's delightful. The diagram is correct for the ballistic analysis, not for SR though The path lengths are fine too. Different lengths. The times for the two rays to travel is the same The two rays arrive at the destination at the same time And as far as the moving detector is concerned, they arrive with the same frequency and the same speed > But now I am having trouble with it. The wavelength should stay the > same, yes. But the frequency stays the same too. At the detector, yes, because it is moving. If you look at point S' as a fixed point in the inertial frame, then no, due to doppler shift, the speeds and frequencies are different. But the detector is NOT fixed.. it is moving and has an instantaneous tangent velocity when it reaches point S', and relative to it, the rays have the same speed and same frequency. > The wavelength is the > same because you don't measure wavelength back toward the source when it > emitted the wave, you measure it in the direction of the wavefront. So > in a time interval t units long, one side emits n cycles at speed c+v > and the other side emits n cycles at speed c-v. Both arrive at the > sensors at the same time. That's correct > During the time for one wave to pass from the > c+v side, one wave will pass from the c-v side too, slower. I don't see > that this gives us a phase shift or a frequency difference or anything > for an interferometer to pick up. It doesn't .. this has been explained countless times to Henry. > It looks to me like the version that has the light emitted at some > speed, call it c+v, and it stays that speed despite any reflections or > refractions, is probably not compatible with Sagnac. It isn't > But there are lots > of other versions to try out, and I doubt any of your results depend on > reflections. What other speeds would you think the reflected light would have? Given that the mirrors are moving with the same angular velocity as the source. If the speed or the rays *does* change at the mirrors, then you would get different arrival times (and different arrival positions) and so see an effect .. but would it give you the observed AMOUNT of effect. >> >> > 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. > > Just as they misinterpreted yours, We don't :) > I think you're misinterpreting them. He is misinterpreting both :) > They can have the rays move at c but one of them has to travel farther > because of the movement of the mirrors etc. That's correct.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 21:12
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:42:06 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"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. Shut up or I'll plonk you.. you silly old pommie drunk. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |