The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 00:21 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:43:59 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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 Baez is as brainwashed as you... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 00:29 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:52:16 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:3jlla5d3fa6pegus7q6u6vj99b3iu21ogl(a)4ax.com... >> 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: >>> >>>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. > >And as the travel times are the same, the leading edges of the two rays >arrive at the detector at the same time, and as the phase of a leading edge >of a wave never changes, that means no phase shift. Each photon takes the same time to travel the ring but the distances traveled are different. Wavelength is invariant...so there are more waves in one path than the other. What does this tell us about the nature of light? >No more analysis necessary > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 12 Sep 2009 01:08 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Each photon takes the same time to travel the ring but the distances > traveled are different. Wavelength is invariant...so there are more > waves in one path than the other. This is one of the places I didn't follow you. Could you maybe show a picture of the paths with more waves in one than the other? Did Androcles give a picture of that you could point to? > What does this tell us about the nature of light? I'm real unclear about that too. Every other theory gives us a picture where you can imagine a bunch of particles moving in all directions, or you can imagine a wave moving in the same directions. Emission theory gives us particles moving from the source, or waves moving from a center that moves. For the first time we get a theory where in many directions the hypothetical particles are going in a different direction from the hypothetical waves. I haven't worked out the implications of that but they look profound. I imagine particles that spin or something, and when they do cancellation they sort of disappear. What happens to the energy they were carrying? I imagine particles streaming out in all directions, the large majority of them destined never to interact with anything much, they head off to the ends of the universe. Billions of years of stars putting out light particles and the majority of them never interact with anything. How much of the mass of the universe would be tied up in that by now? Not that there's anything wrong with that, not like it can't happen, it just seems strange to think of it.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 01:11 On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:17:47 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Once more dear friends into the breach.... > >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> >> >> 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. > >10 hertz, one light-second. > >> >And then we get it rotating at c/10. > >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. > >OK so far. > >> >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. > >OK, I see that the emitter moves forward in the nonrotating frame. Nonononno. The emission POINT ...MARKED IN THE NONROTATING FRAME...is at rest in the nonrotating frame. It moves backwards in the rotating frame. >guess it would be moving backward in the rotating frame. In the >nonrotating frame the emitter is moving forward, which is backward for >the wave that's heading to the back. This is what lets you keep the >wavelength the same even though the frequency is also the same and the >speed is different. > >I'm not quite clear how I moved into the rotating frame, though. Ten >times a second a new wave starts. That's frequency, isn't it? That's the >frequency at the emitter. What's the frequency at the detector? If it's >true that each spot on each wave reaches the detector from both sides in >exactly 1 second, and there are 10 of them in each second, that would >say the frequency at the detector should be 10 per second too. Whether >you count it from the nonrotating frame or the rotating frame either >one, that's the frequency at the detector. > >> 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. > >Um. Pick one that starts at time 0. A wave crest starts in both >directions. It travels at 1.1c in one direction but in 0.9c in the other >direction. However, the detector moves, so that the one going at 1.1c >travels travels 1.1 light seconds while the one going at 0.9c travels >0.9 light seconds. So they both take 1 second to reach the detector. And >at that point they are in phase. Pick any other spot on the cycle from >wave crest to wave crest and the same thing should happen. Pick a spot >where the electric field crosses zero going from positive to negative. >in one direction that travels at 1.1c for 1.1 light seconds, in the >other direction it travels at 0.9c for 0.9 light seconds, taking 1 >second for both. It looks to me like they are in phase when they reach >the detector. I want to try to do this entirely in the nonrotating frame >first, and never slip into the rotating frame. > >> That is too difficult for Jerry and Inertial but I expect YOU will be >> able to understand it. > >I'm glad to keep trying but I don't get it yet. Here's a very simple way to look at it. Imagine a photon as being like a long tightly wound coil spring. (The coils always remain touching). Now we (and SR) have established that the emission and the detection points are separated by the distance vt. Wrap the spring loosely around a cylinder so that it can be rotated around it. Mark two points on the cylinder to represent the above two points for a particular turn. Spin the spring clockwise around the cylinder. No matter how fast you do that, the number of turns between the two fixed points remains the same. In the anticlockwise direction, the number of turns between the two points is different from that of the first because the distance from the emission point and the detection point is different.....but again independent of spin rate. Changing the distance between points is equivalent to changing a ring gyro's rotation speed. I have animated this at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe I think Andro has a similar demo using gear teeth. I think this model can reveal valuable information about the structure of a photon and the nature of light in general. Remember the model produces the experimentally verified result for a ring gyro... >> >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? > >This was wrong. The paths that one point travels in either direction are >stretched or shrunk. But the waves themselves are not stretched or >shrunk, because the emitter moves with the detector. > >> >I just don't see where the phase shift comes from. I'm missing it. >> >> Yes > >> >> 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. > >Yes. Agreed. But each wave is created over the expanse of a wavelength, >it isn't created all at once. Consider what I said above. >I imagine the emitter creating a wave that moves at 1.1c while the >emitter itself moves at 0.1c. There are 10 waves present covering the >distance around the circle from the emitter to the detector which is in >basicly the same place. A new one is being created while the oldest one >travels just enough faster than the detector that it is completely >consumed by the time the new wave is completely created. > >Meanwhile, the emitter creates a second wave that moves at 0.9c while >the emitter moves away at 0.1c. There are 10 waves present covering the >distance around the circle from the emitter backward to the detector. A >new wave is being created while the oldest one travels just fast enough >into the incoming detector that it is completely consumed by the time >the new wave is completely created. > >Yes, wavelength is absolute and frame independent. If you can look at >them, you can measure them. They're in place at any moment of time, >ready to be measured. In the absence of length contraction everybody >will measure them the same length. > >And frequency at the source is also absolute and frame independent. You >can watch the source create its periodic motion, and everybody gets the >same result apart from things like doppler shift which can be easily >corrected. What does 'frequency' mean when applied to light? >Frequency at an observer can change depending on the observer's >velocity. > >I notice that the wave which has a fixed wavelength and a fixed freqency >is different from the path of any particular particle composing the >wave. The particles can move at a different speed and in a different >direction. I don't know the implications of that yet. > >> >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. > >When it rotates they still create ten new waves per second. It's still >true that ten new waves arrive at the detector every second. Each new >wave crest arrives at the same time from both sides. Doesn't it? What is not appreciated is that for a constant rotation speed there is a constant fringe DISPLACEMENT but no fringe MOVEMENT. At constant speed, the same number of waves arrives at the detector each second from BOTH rays.....there is NO doppler shift of frequency....that's why the fringe pattern is stable. BUT the phasing of the two is different because the number of wavelengths in each path is different. During a speed change, the number of wavelengths in each path changes and the fringes move to a new displacement pattern. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 01:12
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:17:25 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"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. > >> 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 or that >he is wrong. > >I do not understand what he is saying, 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. It isn't easy. The 'spring' model I described might make it easier. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |