The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 01:21 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:00334a99$0$2976$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message Let look at Henry's non-relativistic 'BaTH' argument two possible ways... Assume the light rays are a propagating wave. A propagating wave is always observed to have same wavelength by all observers, but their frequency varies. The leading edge of the wave front is always at the same phase (same place in the wave cycle) So if the leading edges of the two ray wave fronts arrive at the detector at the same time, they will be in phase. If the waves also have the same frequency at a detector, then they will remain in phase. This is the case in Sagnac. "BUT" says Henry, "the path lengths are difference, and so the number of wavelengths is different, so the leading edges of the rays are not in phase" For that to be true, that means the position in the cycle of the leading edge of each ray must change over time. So its not a propagating wave, and the rays are instead moving intrinsic oscillators. A moving intrinsic oscillator is always observed to have same frequency by all observers, but its wavelength varies. The position within the cycle of an intrinsic oscillator is determined by time If two same frequency intrinsic oscillators, that started out in phase, arrive at a detector at the same time, they will still be in phase. This is the case in Sagnac. Either way, you end up with a null Sagnac result.
From: Jerry on 11 Sep 2009 02:13 On Sep 11, 12:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > news:00334a99$0$2976$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message > > Let look at Henry's non-relativistic 'BaTH' argument two possible ways... > > Assume the light rays are a propagating wave. > > A propagating wave is always observed to have same wavelength by all > observers, but their frequency varies. > > The leading edge of the wave front is always at the same phase (same place > in the wave cycle) > > So if the leading edges of the two ray wave fronts arrive at the detector at > the same time, they will be in phase. > > If the waves also have the same frequency at a detector, then they will > remain in phase. > > This is the case in Sagnac. > > "BUT" says Henry, "the path lengths are difference, and so the number of > wavelengths is different, so the leading edges of the rays are not in phase" > > For that to be true, that means the position in the cycle of the leading > edge of each ray must change over time. > > So its not a propagating wave, and the rays are instead moving intrinsic > oscillators. > > A moving intrinsic oscillator is always observed to have same frequency by > all observers, but its wavelength varies. > > The position within the cycle of an intrinsic oscillator is determined by > time > > If two same frequency intrinsic oscillators, that started out in phase, > arrive at a detector at the same time, they will still be in phase. > > This is the case in Sagnac. > > Either way, you end up with a null Sagnac result. Notice, however, that Henri fantasizes about intrinsic oscillators that are NOT observed to have the same frequency... http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm
From: Jonah Thomas on 11 Sep 2009 02:27 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > 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. Here's the way that's obvious to me now, though it might turn out something else fits better. Imagine that the speed of your light has two components. One is c, the speed that the light travels on its own hook. The other is v, the speed that the light travels because of the source's speed. Imagine that somehow the source speed is always available, and when the direction of the light changes it winds up traveling at the speed would have had if it had been emitted in that direction. So if the source is traveling in direction V at speed v, and light is emitted in direction V, it travels at speed c+v. But if it then strikes a mirror and reflects into the opposite direction, then it travels at speed c-v. The c part is now in the opposite direction but the v part is unchanged and now opposes the motion instead of adding to it. So if the light works that way, then in the Sagnac experiment the light in both directions goes in a complete circle and so all of the velocity changes will cancel. Both of them will spend 1/4 of their distance traveling at c+v and 1/4 at c-v etc. So the diffraction pattern should be almost the same as the classical and SR case.
From: Jonah Thomas on 11 Sep 2009 03:19 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > > 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. I think I was wrong to say anything about SR. SR is a complex concept that takes a lot of study before students can reliably apply it the ways their instructors say to. If EmT works then I may be able to ignore SR entirely. If it does not then I will have to find something that works and that possibly might be SR or GR etc, but I do better to ignore it while I find out whether EmT fails. I'm certain now that there is at least one form of EmT that satisfies the Sagnac experiment, and I think I know which one but I have been wrong before about other things.
From: Jonah Thomas on 11 Sep 2009 03:41
"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: > >> >> "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. Yes. Two frequencies to make a standing wave. > 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? Ah, you're leading somewhere special. I like this. > 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). Yes. Nice. > 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. [blink] You have 60 lights on your spinning disk, and you use mirrors to put light from two of them together? Mirrors to put the light from two locations that the disk can spin by, together? But they aren't spinning, and a microscopic shift of the disk will move both of them the same amount and that makes the lights hit the diffraction grating at a slightly different angle, which causes a 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. Oh, not two lights on the disk, the second strobe light is fixed. > 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. Communication is hard when you're saying something that's new to the other person. I'm not sure I have the picture straight. I started getting unsure at "windows in a pipe". I imagined a turntable with fiber optics taking light from a single source out to sixty windows, and you strobed the light at the source. But now it looks like you have a second fixed light that strobes, that's "in the pipe". I can sort of guess where this is going about Sagnac, but I have some of the details unclear about the model. |