The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 17:14 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:43:23 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:20090912022447.6fe91124.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> 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 think I see that picture now. > >Better picture. Cylinder. Two marks on the cylinder for start and end >point. Put a hole at the start point, inside the cylinder have two two >ropes with equidistant marks on them (representing the wavelengths). Pull >the ropes from the hole at the start point at two different rates so they >take the same time to go around the cylinder in opposite directions and end >up at the end point. See how the wavelength stays the same, but the points >between which we are measureing the length moves around the cylinder with >the rope. When the two ropes reach the end point at the same time, you have >the same leading mark on each rope lined up. No phase shift. Hahahahahahahh! You are moving the start point in the nonrotating frame. Typical false relativist logic! http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm One path is longer than the other. One length of rope is longer than the other no matter how fast you pull it. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 17:17 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:35:01 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:0u8ma55ec24lv1d3urj2sl2qo8bh3rin4u(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:17:47 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Now we (and SR) have established that the emission and the detection >> points are >> separated by the distance vt. > >Though in SR there are two detection points, due to the difference in time >(and therefore phase). There is one detection point in Ballistic theory >because the time is the same and so there is not difference in phase. > >This is so bleedingly obvious, yet for years you've lied about it. It is bleedingly obvious that the ring rotates during the time the light is in transit...in BOTH SR AND BATH. It is also bleedingly obvious that you are a clueless troll who is only here to waste our time. > >[snip henry nonsense] > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 12 Sep 2009 17:45 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:01:43 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > It is time independent >> > unless it is changing, and if it is changing then at least one of >> > frequency or speed must be changing too. If you can make an >> > instantaneous measurement with a ruler then your relative velocity >> > does not matter. >> > >> > If you suppose that lightspeed can vary, then what does a >> > diffraction grating do? >> >> Causes a change in rotation of a photon. > >I have found your particle explanation of diffraction to be quite vague. Most of what he says is quite vague...but if he would explain it properly instead of ranting, other people might be able to understand some of it. >Unfortunately when I looked in more detail at the classical wave >explanation of diffraction it turned out to be pretty vague too. > >> > When c is constant you can measure diffraction and you have one >> > variable. When c is not constant you have two variables -- and a >> > vector if the velocity of the source makes a difference. When c is >> > constant it doesn't matter whether you're measuring a wavelength >> > change or a frequency change -- they have to go together. It doesn't >> > matter which change is happening -- they have to happen together. >> > When c can be different then it makes a difference whether it's >> > frequency that changes or wavelength or both in some ratio. >> > >> >> > I imagine the emitter creating a wave >> >> The emitter is a molecule. It can only send a pulse. Imagine all you >> want to, >> there are NO light waves. Radio waves, yes, but no light waves. It's >> time you thought carefully instead of repeating the same old dogma. > >Fair enough. I'll look at ways for light particles to do interference. >If I find something I'll let you know. As Andro shows in his next post, electrons also diffract. They are particles. >> The emitter is a different molecule. The first molecule has to be >> recharged with energy before it can fire off a second pulse (in a >> different direction). >> It can only send a pulse. Imagine all you want to, there are NO light >> waves. Radio waves, yes, but no light waves. It's time you thought >> carefully instead of repeating the same old dogma. > >I'm not disputing you about this. I don't know what the truth is and I >have been looking at approaches that seem comfortable and that fit the >available facts I know about. I want to try imagining you are right and >try looking for ways to make the details work. Try my model. It seems pretty logical to me. Photons are particles that also oscillate intrinsically. When a photon is split into two and subsequently reunited, the phasing of the two halves determines the amount of reinforcement or annihilation. Simple, eh? Diffraction grating angles still operate on the 'intrinsic wavelength' principle, on the assumption that photons have a finite cross section. >Does a continuous laser send waves? It's based on the "principle" that a >"charged" molecule can be triggered to "discharge" by light of the >frequency it will send. So a single pulse can somehow set off at least >two others (being absorbed or partly absorbed by those two?) and you >wind up with a cascade that is all in phase but that starts at different >times. Does that count as a wave for you? It's a pulse of photons. Are they all exactly 'in phase' of not? What would 'in phase' actually mean? I would say it means their intrinsic oscillation is coordinated in some way by the lasing action but that would not necessarily cause them have the same intrinsic phase. >Again I'm not arguing that you're wrong about anything, if you say this >is a wave I'm not going to jump up and down and crow that you admitted >you were wrong about something. If this special case is a wave then I've >learned a little more about your system, and if it isn't a wave then I >have more questions. Have you ever seen a slow motion movie of a falling raindrop? It oscilates kind of like a dumbell, maybe with a few harmonics. A photon is obviously a particle that oscillates in some intrinsic way, giving it both particle and wavelike properties. Why can nobody else understand this very simple conceot? Am I more intelligent than everyone else here? .. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 12 Sep 2009 18:38 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090912125853.325f7e11.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> Don't agree to his senile nonsense mantra. All velocities are frame >> dependent >> so all wavelengths are frame dependent. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif > > I'm not sure that you and I ever reached a common understanding about > what a wavelength is. > > I'm pretty sure that part of the problem is that often when physicists > mention "wavelength" in actual problems they do not actually measure the > wavelength. Often they measure frequency and then assume that wavelength > equals velocity/frequency, and sometimes the velocity is assumed. > > What I mean by wavelength is the physical distance between wavefronts. > Ideally you would measure this with a ruler. It is time independent > unless it is changing, and if it is changing then at least one of > frequency or speed must be changing too. If you can make an > instantaneous measurement with a ruler then your relative velocity does > not matter. > > If you suppose that lightspeed can vary, then what does a diffraction > grating do? You didn't have much of an answer for that because you acted > like you didn't want it to be a wave phenomenon at all which leaves it > pretty vague. When I try to think carefully about the traditional wave > explanations for a diffraction grating I find them kind of vague too. > > When c is constant you can measure diffraction and you have one > variable. When c is not constant you have two variables -- and a vector > if the velocity of the source makes a difference. When c is constant it > doesn't matter whether you're measuring a wavelength change or a > frequency change -- they have to go together. It doesn't matter which > change is happening -- they have to happen together. When c can be > different then it makes a difference whether it's frequency that changes > or wavelength or both in some ratio. > >> > 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. >> Fuckin' rubbish. You two should be locked in two cells >> out of earshot of each other. > > Well, if wavelength is the distance between wave fronts, then in > emission theories it is absolute and frame independent. It doesn't > matter what frame you look at it from, you get concentric circles with > even spacing. Your frame decides how fast the center of that circle is > moving. It depends on whether light is moving intrinsic oscillators, in which case wavelength varies (Dopler) for each observer, and frequency remains the same. Or if light is a wave, in which case frequency varies (Dopler) for each observer, and the wavelength remains the same.
From: Inertial on 12 Sep 2009 18:45
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:3hRqm.86868$hv7.64832(a)newsfe10.ams2... > It can only send a pulse. Imagine all you want to, there are NO light > waves. > Radio waves, yes, but no light waves. OMG .. Androcles thinks that the set frequency of EM radition we call light is a totally different concept from the set EM frequencies we call radio waves? He's GOT to be joking. BAHAHAHA If not .. I wonder where he thinks the change between being waves and being particles happens? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum |