The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Sep 2009 23:33 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:igfja5dntkblr9d9kj9kvhp24orogu97go(a)4ax.com... > 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. But what happen at the MOVING detector has EVERYTHING to do with the Sagnac effect. That is the flaw in your analysis, you do the analysis for some fixed point in the inertial frame, and NOT what is detected in the moving detector. You are not analyzing the Sagnac effect but some other 'Wagnac' effect which has different predicted and observed results. You correctly analyze the wrong effect and then claim it is Sagnac. > You are clueless. Sorry .. its you who have no clue. Despite years of the clues being spoon-fed to you.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 23:19 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090910204154.68c1083f.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: >> >> "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. Ok. So you have two frequencies. One, the strobe, you cannot change. The other you can, by changing the RPM. The disc is ~12" in diameter, so the circumference must be 12 pi = 37.7" 33 RPM is 37.7 * 33.3 = 1255 inches/minute, or ~21 inches/sec. The strobe is 60 Hz, so the pips have to be 21/60 ~= 1/3" apart, there are 60 of them and it will appear to stand still at 33 RPM. Definitely nothing to do with Einstein's relativity, right? The other way to make it stand still is let it stand still. Now comes a cute trick. We take off the pips and replace them with windows in a pipe (a light guide is fine), and put a strobing light in the pipe. Then with mirrors we reflect both lights onto a white card, and at 33 rpm the illuminated spots on the card stand still at 33 RPM (and 0 RPM). So you have two spots of light, you can superimpose them or not, and as long as they remain the same distance apart the turntable has a speed of 33.3 RPM. The gap between the spots is the phase angle. If you stop the turntable, you can move it back a forth 1/3" and change the phase angle by bringing the spot from the previous window or the next window into line with the spot from the fixed light. Next we take those two spots of light, superimpose them on a diffraction grating, and get a fringe shift. Now a microscopic movement of the turntable produces a noticeable phase shift. What Sagnac does is replace the fixed light outside the turntable with a second light in the pipe, directed to travel in the opposite direction. Still nothing to do with Einstein's relativity, right? I won't give you any more yet, I know you have a short attention and will only snip and ignore it.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 23:46 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:pbsia5tm5oe7n4lqbjsq85vgjmdc8kppd9(a)4ax.com... > 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 can't, it has to unifuckate to c before it gets there according to your BaThwater.
From: Androcles on 10 Sep 2009 23:53 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:uqsia59ea9t0lcptgb5fdosen6u0mhgfkj(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:28:21 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> > wrote: > >> >>"J Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:58508c77-157d-4123-8cd6-36f334acc5c6(a)g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> >>> >There is no easy way to determine distance, eccentricity, major axis or >>> >inclination. >>> >>> Distance can now be measured quite accurately up to about 1000LYs. >>> >>> I can measure eccentricity and yaw by matching a star's brightness >>> curve. >>> >>> >All have to be estimated from other considerations. Period is >>> >measurable, >>> >>> Not neccessarily for very distant objects. What is observed might be >>> subject to >>> doppler shift or time compression. >> >>Do you believe in time compression, or are you just pointing out that >>other people do? >>================================================= >>Henri is talking about this: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF >>Several years ago before his senile dementia set in he reached that >>obvious >>conclusion before I did. >>Apparent time compression (ATC) only occurs at the observer, but Hulse >>and Taylor got a Nobel prize in 1993 for claiming it occurred at the >>source >>as a result of Einstein's General Stupidity. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html > > Time compression is an ADoppler effect. Si are the brightness curves our > programs produce. Si are fuckin' drunk. Wilson's time compression: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF Wilson's unifuckation: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStarGR.GIF Wilson accepts Einstein's GR gravity time compression at the source and SR's second postulate. He has no idea what ballistic light is all about. Go ahead, plonk me.
From: Androcles on 11 Sep 2009 00:11
"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. 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. ============================================= The flight attendant moves at 3 mph max, yet travels 3000 miles in 6 hours. Velocities are frame dependent. According to SR, light moves at c in ALL frames of reference. Some idiots even say that's the second postulate, although its really a conclusion in � 5. The Composition of Velocities. Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Such a conclusion is called "reductio-ad-absurdum" in mathematics. Sagnac refutes SR because it requires that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the nonrotating frame and c with respect to the rotating frame. Don't stand next to a rotating Sagnac or your wristwatch will slow down, you are in the c+v frame. |