The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 23:25 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090911231725.48263503.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> The light source itself is an intrinsic oscillator. >> >> The frequency of that oscillator is the same in all frames of >> reference (if we are assuming a non-relativistic reality) > > Sure. If you want to fudge how many cycles the source goes through in a > second, you have to do it with relativistic time contraction or > dilation. To change that one you need to be bold, to give up > simultaneity etc. Yeup .. and we're not considering that here, as we're talking about ballistic analysis. So that makes things simpler, and means 'frame jumping' wrt many things is not the problem the Henry makes it out to be :) >> It must be the case as there are particular things happening at fixed >> events (ie points in space and time). In particular the location and >> time at which the source begins its next cycle of oscillation. >> >> So your claim that in some time, t, the source oscillator has gong >> through n cycles, is correct in EVERY frame of reference (inertial or >> not). There is no problem with frame jumping (if you do it) for >> something that is absolute and the same in all frames. > > Sure. But that does not mean that I understand Wilson's claims I don't think anyone does .. not even him. I understand enough of them to know that they are mostly inconsistent and unphysical. Which is why he seems to change his position all the time, due to his self-conrtadictory ideas. > or that > he is wrong. Depends on what about. > I do not understand what he is saying, I don't think he does either .. he alternates between saying light rays are moving intrinsic oscillators and that the are waves. He doesn't seem to know, and uses whichever one lets him argue with someone else > and it's quite possible that > there's a way to look at this which I have missed which gives the > conclusions he claims. I just don't understand it yet. Actually, it appears you do understand quite well. Which is why you also find that if you follow through the analysis correctly, you get (as every other physicist has done since Sagnac himself) that a ballistic theory (where the waves in the non-rotating frame have c+v and c-v velocities) gives you a zero Sagnac effect. Henry's logic is flawed because he only analyses what a fixed detector in the non-rotating frame would detect, not the actual moving detector of Sagnac. He even says that what the moving detector detects is irrelevant to Saganc !! I mean, really .. how can the actual observed effect that one is trying to analyze be irrelevant to an analysis?
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 00:03 On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:28:57 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:70hla5pfctkmq5ftdfacul2hi4g2fcovo2(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:46:46 +0100, "Androcles" > >So FOGs don't work... >It is estimated that the extinction distance in a vacuum is greater than >15 billion light years (don't ask me who determined that) but normally >the vacuum would be at rest with the dork in this type of experiment. > >Don't forget the SoAp (Stupid ozzie Arsehole's phuckwittery) in the >WaSh in the BaTh. Pommies don't know much about soap, wash or baths. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 00:10 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:42:33 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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: >>>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'. I have seriously considered the idea myself. Light is somehow related to our conscious 'awareness'. ..... but that doesn't explain why it takes time to go from A to B like anything else. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 00:19 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:40:48 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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> >> 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. You don't know what a frame is anyway. > Bahahaha. > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 00:21
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:47:46 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:7sjla55q418ve3t49ftvd1rvfk7v8njuau(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>>> 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 >> >> Poor old Crank. ...has never heard of doppler shift. > >Intrinsic oscillators have wavelength doppler shifted, with frequency >constant. > >Waves have frequency doppler shifted, with wavelength constant. > >Unless you have SR for things travelling at c and you get both shifted >(which is what we observe for light) > >> Obviously the frequencies >> are different in the inertial frame > >So its not an intrinsic oscillator, its a wave front. And waves fronts that >arrive at a given point at the same time are in phase Forget wavefronts. Photons are individual oscillating particles. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |