The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 21:36 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:27:39 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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 >> >> > >> >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. This is where the relativist rabble goes wrong. In the NON-ROTATING FRAME the frequencies of the rays are doppler shifted in opposite directions. We are using that frame for our analysis. This is very basic physics ...but clearly too hard for the relativist mentality. >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. ....because you are jumping from one frame to another. If you try to use the rotating frame, there is an imaginary time factor, that I tried to explain before. In the rotating frame, the emission point of a particular element MOVES BACKWARDS. >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. I and George Dishman looked at the reflection problem very intensely some years ago. It is not the issue. The point missed by most people is that the emission and detection point of a particular wave element are not the same. SR uses this ...so I can't understand why its followers want to complaiin when I do. There is only a small difference between the SR and BaTh explanation. SR says the rays both move at c and there is a difference in distance and time traveled. BaTh says the travel times are the same, the distances are different but wavelength is the same in both...and therefore there are more waves in one ray than the other. They flow in or out during a speed change. Alternatively, BaTh says the frequencies are doppler shifted oppositely in the inertial frame and since then travel times are the same, there is aohase difference when they reunite. >> >> > 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. No, they wriggle out of the problem by claiming that the separation soeed of the light from the source is indeed c+v. SR apparently accepts that light can APPROACH objects at any speed when seen by a third observer. So a Light pulse that is fired at two differently moving observers approaches them at speeds other than c....but both observers would measure its speed to be c. I think this highlights how stupid SR really is. Einstein stole that idea directly from LET. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 21:37 On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:50:35 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. If you would make up your mind which frame you are using you mightn't make such a fool of yourself. > >> 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. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 21:55 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:3a9ja5143q0v286b8fm9hisvo41979q248(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:27:39 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>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 > >>> >>> > >>> >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. > > This is where the relativist rabble goes wrong. In the NON-ROTATING FRAME > the > frequencies of the rays are doppler shifted in opposite directions. Just as SR says > We are > using that frame for our analysis. And we have to doppler shift back to the moving detector, and we find that the light has travelled for the same time, it arrives at the same speed, and has the same frequency > This is very basic physics Yes it is > ...but clearly > too hard for the relativist mentality. We understand it perfectly. And it shows that ballistic theory is wrong. [snip] > There is only a small difference between the SR and BaTh explanation. One gets the right answer and one doesn't > SR says the rays both move at c and there is a difference in distance and > time > traveled. And hence a phase difference, phase difference is cause by two waves arriving at a given point at different times in their cycle. > BaTh says the travel times are the same, the distances are different > but wavelength is the same in both...and therefore there are more waves in > one > ray than the other. Wbhich doesn't make any difference > They flow in or out during a speed change. There's no speed change in Sagnac .. it rotates with a constant angular velocity. > Alternatively, BaTh says the frequencies are doppler shifted oppositely in > the > inertial frame and since then travel times are the same, there is aohase > difference when they reunite. Except that there isn't because the detector is moving [snip] >>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. > > No, they wriggle out of the problem No wriggling required > by claiming that the separation soeed of > the light from the source is indeed c+v. It is. That's not a wriggle, its basic SR .. and basic physics. If the light is travelling at c in the inertial frame, and the source at v, then the separation speed is the vector difference. > SR apparently accepts that light can APPROACH objects at any speed when > seen by > a third observer. Yeup. Its all relative. Every inertial observer measures light as travelling at c relative to him, and so if other objects are moving relative to him, obviously their separation/closing speed relative to the light will NOT be c. > So a Light pulse that is fired at two differently moving observers > approaches > them at speeds other than c The speeds depend on who is measuring it. > ....but both observers would measure its speed to be > c. Yes they do. > I think this highlights how stupid SR really is. It highlights your stupidity when you keep lying and say Sagnac refutes SR and think no-one will notice. > Einstein stole that idea > directly from LET. He 'stole' it from experimental evidence that implied that light speed was a constant. But the history is irrelevant to the physics. Some people think that slandering Einstein, and saying he stole ideas, means the SR must be wrong. A completely illogical argument, as one expects from crackpots like Henry.
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 21:59 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:9daja55cdvnqqsgoeq4t33l32vvst97fv0(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:50:35 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > If you would make up your mind which frame you are using you mightn't make > such > a fool of yourself. I'm not a fool, nor do I appear so. I am clearly using the non-rotating inertial frame. The detector is moving IN THAT FRAME, and so what you describe happens at the detector MUST take that motion into account. Of course, you know that .. its just your propensity for shameless lying to avoid having to admit you've been wrong for so many years that makes you appear so foolish to everyone else.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 10 Sep 2009 23:05
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:59:35 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:9daja55cdvnqqsgoeq4t33l32vvst97fv0(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:50:35 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> If you would make up your mind which frame you are using you mightn't make >> such >> a fool of yourself. > >I'm not a fool, nor do I appear so. > >I am clearly using the non-rotating inertial frame. The detector is moving >IN THAT FRAME, and so what you describe happens at the detector MUST take >that motion into account. > >Of course, you know that .. its just your propensity for shameless lying to >avoid having to admit you've been wrong for so many years that makes you >appear so foolish to everyone else. What happens at the MOVING detector has nothing to do with what happens in the whole path as viewed in the inertial frame. You are clueless. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |