The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 11 Sep 2009 08:48 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090911034105.2a34a4b3.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: >> >> >> "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? No, I'm still only using one of the 60 lights and the stationary light. The turntable is stopped. The two lights interfere at the diffraction grating, but if I move the turntable even a 1/10thousandth of an inch I change the interference pattern. > 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? It's all about phase, whether the disc spins at 0, 33.3, 66.7, 100 RPM >> 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. Then it's no good you complaining to others that I'm taking it slowly, as you have done. I can assure you I spend more time drawing gifs than you do looking at them and brushing them off as "pretty". > > 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. That'll work too. It's called a FOG, or Fibre Optic Gyro. http://www.caclase.co.uk/militaryOEM.html But now it looks like > you have a second fixed light that strobes, that's "in the pipe". Yep. So if I arrange for the length of the pipe to be an exact multiple of the wavelength, that's the same as having exactly 60 pips around the old turntable. And because one ray goes clockwise and the other goes counter clockwise and they interfere ... see it now? Let's put it this way. You are standing on one side of the turntable, sticking on smiley faces every 1/3 inch as the turntable rotates in front of you. I'm on the opposite side, taking off smiley faces and replacing them with grumpy faces. Half the turntable is smiley, half is grumpy. You of course are taking off grumpy faces. The light to illuminate the faces is on one side only, a quarter way around the circle, and Henri is watching. He only sees smiley faces, all the grumpy faces are on the opposite side, away from him. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( The same happens if we stop the turntable and we both walk around it in the same direction, but if you walk in one direction and I walk in the other, what happens then? Now we continue as we were, both moving around in a circle, in opposite directions. But Henri turns the turnable slowly, toward you and away from me. You have to keep the same frequency of deposition of smiley faces, as do I, but the 1/3" gap between your smiley faces has opened up to 1/2" inch, and closed down to 1/4" for my grumpy faces. As a result, the edge of the turntable has alternate smiley and grumpy faces. :-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-(:-):-( First postulate: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." First idiocy: "Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle." Einstein thought of himself as the "prominent theoretical physicist". Prominent theoretical phuckwit more like. > I can sort of guess where this is going about Sagnac, but I have some of > the details unclear about the model. In a word, "phase". Understand the PoR, understand phase, all becomes clear. As Henri said to you or the "Inertial" twit with the inert brain, "you are frame jumping". The speed of light is c in the rotating frame and c+v, c-v in the non rotating frame. Frequency remains constant, wavelength and speed do not.
From: Androcles on 11 Sep 2009 09:48 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090911090337.6e82b850.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> 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. >> > =========================== >> Son, SR cannot be reliably applied to anything. All you can do with it >> is write down the answer that some idiot professor expects to see on >> an examination paper. > > The difference between what you said and what I said is that you are > more definite and emphatic. > >> SR is built on two of the madman Einstein's absurd beliefs, >> >> a) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity >> c" b) the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the >> ``time'' >> it requires to travel from B to A. >> >> Both are ridiculous, but because he wrote it in algebra which YOU >> don't understand and the prick calling itself "Inertial" doesn't >> understand, the blind lead the blind and the pair of you convince each >> other that Einstein must have been a genius because "everyone says >> so". > > I don't understand it well enough to be sure it's bullshit. What is there to understand about the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A ? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm > A whole lot > of people have studied it and gone on to use it sometimes. It can't be used except to pass an exam in order to wave a sheepskin under an employer's nose saying "Give me a job, look how clever I am, I understand Einstein." > Did a large > minority of them figure out it was worthless, but they keep their mouths > shut for the sake of their careers? Some did, sure. I was one of them, I'm ashamed to say. Passing exams is more important than truth. That seems implausible, but it could > happen. Of course it happens. You tell people what they want to hear, not the truth. Hey Mr Examiner, I can write the Lorentz transformations, look: xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) I remembered it, give me an 'A' on my paper. And Mr. Examiner does, even if he knows its garbage, because he knows I had to learn it and it's in the syllabus. > Did a lot of people see that it's implausible and unintuitive, > but they could get adequate results with it so they don't question it? > That seems more plausible. If the difference between relativity results > versus classical results is seldom important, people could do things > whichever way they prefer and then if a reviewer etc notices they didn't > use relativity and demands they do so, they can go back and do that and > it's unlikely to be any problem beyond the extra effort. > >> "If EmT works then I may be able to ignore SR entirely. "-- Thomas >> If cars have wheels then I may be able to ignore sled skids entirely. > > But then, sled skids are useful for special purposes. Can't you think of > anything better to ignore? Nuclear-powered ice-skates, maybe? I could think of ignoring idiots. As it is I ignore fuckwits and nitwits, the cut-off threshold is halfwit. Henri gets by as a dullwit, it takes years to get the simplest ideas across to him but he gets there eventually. Then he says he thought of it first. He loves to have his own theory. I don't have a theory, I've never had a theory. Everything I write about is the work of others. What I DO have is a discovery. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 11:04 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090911045827.2c94922e.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> OK .. so c+v >> >> > 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 unreflected, it stays at c+v >> If reflected 180 deg, it changes to c-v (or vice versa) >> So what happens when the light gets reflected at 90 deg .. does the >> light then travel at c? >> But then, it would have forgotten its 'v' part at the next reflection. > > No, the point is that it doesn't forget. Reflect to any angle and it > travels at the speed it would have if it was emitted at that angle. Of course, as far as a photon is concerned .. it travelled at c from its source The +v is all just according to an observer, and different observers see different values for v So its not something a photon can 'know', because it is solely observer dependant. I can't see how a mirror could do anything other than reflect back a particle with the same speed that the particle had when it hit, but in a different direction (maybe losing some speed due to momentum transfer) >> > 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. >> >> If you travel at c+v one way and c-v back for the same distance, that >> doesn't average out to be c. But for relatively small v, it will be >> close. > > It doesn't have to average out to c. The forward light travels at c+v > and later at c-v. The backward light travels at c-v and later at c+v. But different distances for the two rays. It certainly complicates the math substantially, esp since we don't know yet what speeds the light would have, as the reflections are not exactly 90 deg in the non rotating frame. > So > the speeds average out between the two of them, leaving you with a very > similar interference pattern compared to the classical case. You would most likely get some phase shift, and possible a changing interference pattern if the speeds of the photons changed at each mirror. Whether or not it is anything like what we see in a Sagnac experiment would be hard to tell until we did the math. It does seem extremely ad-hoc though. >> > Both of them will spend 1/4 of their distance >> > traveling at c+v and 1/4 at c-v etc. > >> Not really, as you are reflecting at (something near) 90 deg at each >> mirror, not 180. And I'm not sure yet what your newe reflection >> theory for light would say about such a reflection > > I haven't decided what speed I need at 90 degrees. Since forward and > back will both travel an equal distance either way, the differences will > disappear regardless of the speed. So I'll save my prediction of that > speed until I find some other experiment I have to fudge it to. :):) >> > So the diffraction pattern should >> > be almost the same as the classical and SR case. >> >> I think we're getting a bit unrealistic there with how mirrors work :) >> > > You're a relativist and you're noodging about unrealistic asssumptions? Yeup. Nothing unrealistic about the laws of physics being the same everywhere, nor the speed of light being a constant (though when you consider the conequences, they are not what one expects, yet they are what we see experimentally) > Hey, if Einstein can do it, I can do it. Besides, Ritz did this one > first. It's other people who made up a ballistic theory with constant > c+v. Ritz did it my way. Can you please show a reference to that? Thanks
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 11:29 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090911050506.12a97987.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > I thought frequency * wavelength had to equal velocity? No, for >> > emission theory it doesn't have to. Source and target travel at the >> > same speed so there's no doppler effect and no redshift. Wavelength >> > stays the same. Frequency stays the same. Velocity varies with the >> > speed of target and source. >> > >> > So now my picture is improved. >> >> Hope I've helped > > Yes, thank you! BTW: I might digress into some philosophy / metaphysics for a moment that you may find it interesting. I'm just going to see where the thoughts take me, so welcome along for the ride. Don't expect this to be in any way formal, nor is it physics, nor is it something that I think is definitely the case etc etc .. just some thoughts. In order to have a universe we need three things (among others) .. space, time, and change/causality. Without space, the universe is a single point and nothing happens. Without time, nothing can change and the universe is instantly over. Without change / causality nothing happens and the universe is frozen. We also need a finite speed of causality/change. If cause and effect were instant, then the whole of the universe would be over in zero timem as all chains of cause and effect would happen in an instant. If cause and effect do not propagate instantly (ie with infinite speed), then there must be a finite speed at which they do propagate. This gives us that the temporal difference between cause and effect relates to spatial distance between cause an effect. Time and space let us have a causes and effects that are not instant (and vice versa). The structure of the universe, then, needs to be such that there is a finite speed of causality / change. If cause and effect could be instant, then (say) if there was a change in the position of a charge, the field change would have instant effect throughout the universe. A bit like if you have a perfectly rigid rod (there is no such thing, but we can imagine one), where if you move one end of the rod, the whole rod moves the same instantly. But when you move something non-rigid, it takes time for the change to propagate. Back to our moving charge, the change in the field would have to propagate at that finite speed of causality I mentioned before, and so you would end up with a wave of field changes. That is (roughly) what light is, the wave of change moving through space and time with the speed of causality. Light only exists *because* there is a finite speed of change. And it must travel at the speed. That's what makes the second postulate of SR, the definite speed of light, valid. The very structure of reality, with a finite speed of causality (that must exist so that reality doesn't just collapse into a single point) gives us light that must travel with a speed that is always the same. Anyway .. that's just my little bit of philosophy and metaphysics. I don't usually delve into it, but it might give you something to ponder :):)
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 12:05
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote in message news:jzsqm.84947$Ne3.47873(a)newsfe15.ams2... > > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090911090337.6e82b850.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>> 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. >>> >> =========================== >>> Son, SR cannot be reliably applied to anything. All you can do with it >>> is write down the answer that some idiot professor expects to see on >>> an examination paper. >> >> The difference between what you said and what I said is that you are >> more definite and emphatic. >> >>> SR is built on two of the madman Einstein's absurd beliefs, >>> >>> a) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity >>> c" b) the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the >>> ``time'' >>> it requires to travel from B to A. >>> >>> Both are ridiculous, but because he wrote it in algebra which YOU >>> don't understand and the prick calling itself "Inertial" doesn't >>> understand, the blind lead the blind and the pair of you convince each >>> other that Einstein must have been a genius because "everyone says >>> so". >> >> I don't understand it well enough to be sure it's bullshit. > > What is there to understand about > the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the > ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A ? Apparently too much for Anrdocles to cope with. It can't be much simpler. Two fixed point A and B .. light goes from A to B and the same speed as B to A and takes the same time. Gees .. how simple is it? Yet he keeps claiming it is nonsense. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm The first part of the above page is not relevant. The second part is taken from Einstein's 1905 paper. See (for example) http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins/On-the_electrodynamics/index.html for the whole paper. The terms 'inertial frame' etc, were not around at the time (AFAIK) and Einstein used a 'point of space' to refer to a fixed point (ie fixed set of coordinates) in the 'space' of the observer inertial frame. This is confirmed a couple of sentences further on where Einstein summaries "we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous *stationary* clocks located at different places ... It is essential to have time defined by means of *stationary* clocks in the *stationary* system". Note the word *stationary* :) I'm sure Androcles will then show, once again, his nice little animations of light going between a pair of moving clocks and points out how saying the times in the two directions is the same is nonsense .. which it is .. because it is not the scenario Einstein used for the definition, which is for stationary clocks only. So though nice animations, they say nothing about the Einstein obvious definition of what two synchronized stationary clocks would show. |