The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 11 Sep 2009 19:27 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "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. 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. > >> > ================================================== > >> > 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 laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference > > No such law exists in Einstein's SR. It appears to exist in Thomas's > SR, but I've never studied any other SR but Einstein's and I doubt > anyone has ever studied Jonah Thomas's SR. I certainly have never studied Jonah Thomas's SR. I'm interested in emission theory now. I say that emission theory does a whole lof of what people say they like in SR, but so far I have seen no evidence that it does time dilation or length compression except for apparent time dilation from redshifts etc. > > if > > light is propagated at c+V too (where V is the velocity vector of > > the light's source). The light isn't always the same, but on the > > other hand we may turn out not to require time dilation, distance > > contraction, and the other weird side effects of constant c. > >> > b) the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals > >the> > ``time'' > >> > it requires to travel from B to A. > >> > >> That's not a postulate, or a belief .. it is simply a logical > >> consequence from light travelling at fixed speed in any inertial > >frame> of reference. > > > > Yes, but light traveling at fixed speed in any frame is a postulate, > > that leads to bewildering consequences. > > > >> Oh .. and as always, you missed there that b) is only for two > >points A> and B that are fixed in a given frame of reference > >> > >> How can it NOT be that case that light travelling at c from fixed > >> point A to fixed point B will take the same time as light > >travelling> at the same speed in the opposite direction for the > >identical distance> from fixed point B to fixed point A. To claim > >that the times would> NOT be the same is what is ridiculous. (And > >note: if A and or B are> moving in the inertial frame, then SR > >doesn't say the times are the> same). > > > > It's a consequence of claiming that lightspeed is the same always. > > If light moves at c+V then D+V may not equal -D+V. > > > >> > Both are ridiculous, > >> > >> a) is a bit unexpected in its consequences .. but not ridiculous > >> b) is obvious, and not ridiculous at all > > > > This is because you are used to them. For somebody who grew up in > > rural missouri, these ideas do not come at all naturally.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 11 Sep 2009 19:25 On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:16:19 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> 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. > >OK, I'll try to stay with the nonrotating frame. I'm trying to >understand this, it's just easy for me to mess us. > >> >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. > >OK, let me try this again. I'll put ridiculous numbers on it that I hope >are easy to work with. > >Let's say that our light is 10 Hertz and the path is 1 light-second >long. > >And then we get it rotating at c/10. Now the light in the forward >direction travels at 1.1c while the light in the back direction travels >at 0.9c. But the apparatus itself is moving at 0.1c, so in the same time >that it previously took for the light to go from source to target it >still goes from source to target in both directions. But the light in >one direction travels 10% farther, while the light in the other >direction travels only 90% as far. Right so far. The path lengths are different and the travel times are the same IN THE INERTIAL FRAME. > >How many cycles have they gone? The same number, 10 cycles. The light is >10 hertz, so in 1 second they each send out 10 waves. Now you are in trouble. You have moved into the rotating frame, which is full of traps. For instance, if you mark the point where a particular wave element is emitted, on the NON rotating frame, that mark moves backwards in the rotating frame. The path lengths are again DIFFERENT just as they were in the nonrotating frame. In the rotating frame, photons have the same frequency and because both rays move at c in that frame, the elements that go clockwise doesn't meet their other halves at the detector. The ones that do meet are out of phase. That is too difficult for Jerry and Inertial but I expect YOU will be able to understand it. >But each wave on >one side is stretched an extra 10% while each wave on the other side is >just 90% as long. Then we let the waves interfere. They start out at the >same time. One of them is 10% longer than a lightwave from a stationary >source, but it also travels 10% faster. The other is 90% the length and >it travels at 90% of the speed. Won't these interfere just exactly like >they would if they both started at the same time and both were the same >length and both traveled at c? > >I just don't see where the phase shift comes from. I'm missing it. Yes >But if the light doesn't just travel around the circle at c+v the whole >way in one direction and c-v the whole way in the other direction, then >it can work fine. And you haven't said anything so far that indicates >your theory needs light to stay the same speed after it reflects off a >mirror. > >> 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. > >I think I accounted for that. That's why in one direction you travel 10% >farther to reach the end and in the other direction you travel only 90% >as far. Because the detection point has moved 10% since the wave left >the emission point. > >> 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. > >That's the step I'm missing. It looks to me like the same number of >waves. Wavelength is absolute and frame independent in BaTh. >Say you have one wave in each direction starting at time zero, >they should both reach the end at time 0.1 second. Exactly nine more >should reach the end by time 1 second, in both directions. See above. You are jumping frames again. You are describing a nonrotating sagnac interferometer. >> 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. > >If they were traveling at the same speed when they reunited then I'd see >the doppler effect. But they're still traveling at different speeds and >so I imagine them unrolling in exact overlap. No, wait. They overlap >exactly as they cross the finish line, neck and neck at the start and >the shorter one goes through slower. But the interference pattern they >make past that point? The short, slow wave matched against the long fast >one? Is that what I was missing? No. Study what I said above. >I don't want to talk about SR. It looks like it's real easy to make >mistakes with SR, and my intuition is no good there either. Emission >theory is so much simpler and easier, and I'm still having trouble with >it. I'll try to figure out the easy version first, and only take up SR >if emission theory fails. There was never any real evidence against BaTh. If Einstein hadn't produced his trendy SciFi theory, complete with its own new maths and jargon, just as Ritz happened to die, I'm sure the BaTh would have been investigated more thoroughly. Incidentally, Einstein is accredited with the famous equation: E = mc^2...but that was around well before him. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 11 Sep 2009 19:37 On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:27:46 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote >> > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference >> >> No such law exists in Einstein's SR. It appears to exist in Thomas's >> SR, but I've never studied any other SR but Einstein's and I doubt >> anyone has ever studied Jonah Thomas's SR. > >I certainly have never studied Jonah Thomas's SR. I'm interested in >emission theory now. I say that emission theory does a whole lof of what >people say they like in SR, but so far I have seen no evidence that it >does time dilation or length compression except for apparent time >dilation from redshifts etc. There is NO time dilation or length contraction. I have explained the apparent 'relativistic mass increase' which IS real...but is not actually an increae in mass at all. I put it down to the energy in the 'Wilson Reverse Field Bubble'. My theory says that a fast moving charge constitutes a current which creates a reverse field that opposes the applied one...Hence, the resultant field -> zero as speed increases. A great deal of energy is used to create and maintain the 'bubble' in vacuum and this is what is measured in bolometer verifiactions of the so called 'mass increase'. Another consideration is that fields take time to act and it is impossible to accelerate a charge at a speed greater than that of the field. However, I ran a little program to compare this shapes of curves produced by this process with those produced by the gamma term and the two are considerabey different. ..but it might still add to the 'bubble effect'. > >> > if >> > light is propagated at c+V too (where V is the velocity vector of >> > the light's source). The light isn't always the same, but on the >> > other hand we may turn out not to require time dilation, distance >> > contraction, and the other weird side effects of constant c. > > >> >> > b) the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals >> >the> > ``time'' >> >> > it requires to travel from B to A. >> >> >> >> That's not a postulate, or a belief .. it is simply a logical >> >> consequence from light travelling at fixed speed in any inertial >> >frame> of reference. >> > >> > Yes, but light traveling at fixed speed in any frame is a postulate, >> > that leads to bewildering consequences. >> > >> >> Oh .. and as always, you missed there that b) is only for two >> >points A> and B that are fixed in a given frame of reference >> >> >> >> How can it NOT be that case that light travelling at c from fixed >> >> point A to fixed point B will take the same time as light >> >travelling> at the same speed in the opposite direction for the >> >identical distance> from fixed point B to fixed point A. To claim >> >that the times would> NOT be the same is what is ridiculous. (And >> >note: if A and or B are> moving in the inertial frame, then SR >> >doesn't say the times are the> same). >> > >> > It's a consequence of claiming that lightspeed is the same always. >> > If light moves at c+V then D+V may not equal -D+V. >> > >> >> > Both are ridiculous, >> >> >> >> a) is a bit unexpected in its consequences .. but not ridiculous >> >> b) is obvious, and not ridiculous at all >> > >> > This is because you are used to them. For somebody who grew up in >> > rural missouri, these ideas do not come at all naturally. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 11 Sep 2009 19:59 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090911192746.1f94a9c5.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "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. 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. >> >> > ================================================== >> >> > 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 laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference >> >> No such law exists in Einstein's SR. It appears to exist in Thomas's >> SR, but I've never studied any other SR but Einstein's and I doubt >> anyone has ever studied Jonah Thomas's SR. > > I certainly have never studied Jonah Thomas's SR. I'm interested in > emission theory now. I say that emission theory does a whole lof of what > people say they like in SR, but so far I have seen no evidence that it > does time dilation or length compression except for apparent time > dilation from redshifts etc. WYSIWYG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG What it means depends on your theory.
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 20:31
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:m6nla5d4lmti24eko6m86h91cd6mas4lpl(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:27:46 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote > >>> > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference >>> >>> No such law exists in Einstein's SR. It appears to exist in Thomas's >>> SR, but I've never studied any other SR but Einstein's and I doubt >>> anyone has ever studied Jonah Thomas's SR. >> >>I certainly have never studied Jonah Thomas's SR. I'm interested in >>emission theory now. I say that emission theory does a whole lof of what >>people say they like in SR, but so far I have seen no evidence that it >>does time dilation or length compression except for apparent time >>dilation from redshifts etc. > > There is NO time dilation or length contraction. Henry, of course, denies experimental evidence in favor of lies [snip Henry babbling on about more rot] |