The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 20:34 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote in message news:t3zqm.93330$4f4.18549(a)newsfe11.ams2... > > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090911154526.03af0773.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "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 >> >> Yes. That's the rule -- light travels at c always, in its own frame, the >> inertial frame of its source when it was emitted. > > A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the [snip repeated irrelevance .. what phrase Einstein used in his paper at the time has no bearing on current terminology.]
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 20:37 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote in message news:evBqm.100474$bU2.38899(a)newsfe29.ams2... > > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090911192036.48397fa1.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>> >> >> > 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 >>> > >>> > Yes. That's the rule -- light travels at c always, in its own frame, >>> > the inertial frame of its source when it was emitted. Not that the above is what Jonah said, not me >>> Everything travels at speed zero in its own frame, it is always at the >>> origin. Otherwise it would leave its frame behind. Which is what I told Jonah >>> Clearly neither of >>> you idiots have a clue what a frame of reference is. >>> You should both learn the basics. You should learn how to read a thread and who said what >> Good point. The better term is, in the frame of its source when it was >> emitted. > > Fair enough. Point it out to the idiot "Inertial" I'm not the one who said it .. I picked him up on the same thing > instead of agreeing with it. Try to keep up.
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 20:40 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:qvhla51ae30orbnajjn964idkq36k7s8h1(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:44:07 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:20090911044249.1fdc25cb.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> >> 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 >>> >>> I think that's what I was missing. >> >>Could be. Henry seems to think that how the waves arrive at the detector >>doesn't matter for sagnac .. which is complete nonsense, seeing that is >>where you detect the effect. > > You're so clueless you can't understand that they can arrive at the same > rate > but out of phase. But that means arriving at different times. Which is what happens in SR analysis, but not in ballistic. > That's because you keep frame jumping. And did no frame jumping at all. Thats term you use but don't understand (because you've been reightly criticised for doing it in your own flawed analysis before), so you think its a valid way of claiming and argument is wrong. Just say the magic phrase "frame jumping" and the problem goes away. Bahahaha.
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 20:42 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:9uila5lvgihjki8lidqgf3ku6o9dlfm0i5(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:29:49 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > That idea has been put forward before. But speed is relative. Yes it is .. I didn't say otherwise > Your concept > requires an absolute aether. No .. no aether there at all, just a maximum rate that causality / change can propogate at. >>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 :):) But I thank you for actually reading it and taking it in the spirit of how it was meant .. as just some philosophical metaphysical thoughts, and not as hard 'physics'.
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 20:43
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:h2jla5ln60ms265l50dfh5aglf7lopi0d9(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:41:35 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:fnfja5123khlm8mcfurerb9ftabpkn4tij(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:55:46 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>> Unfortunately that is a bit of SciFi. Nobody has ever measured OWLS from >>> a >>> moving source. >> >>Every experiment has shown the speed of light is c (when not slowed by >>some >>medium). > > 'Every experiment' has been a TW experiment using a source at rest wrt the > detector. Wrong see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests for one-way-light-speed tests see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests for moving source tests |