The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Sep 2009 19:02 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:0q3oa55eebsense5dshgrodrhbu94utal0(a)4ax.com... > 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. Yes there is .. derrrr. > It is also bleedingly obvious that you are a clueless troll who is only > here to > waste our time. So ..that is your argument to the oh-so-obvious result that ballistic theory cannot give a phase shift because the waves arrive at the same time.
From: Androcles on 12 Sep 2009 19:02 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:d09oa59al2tf0737qs20k1bn6q6ba716p4(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:38:49 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > Clearly, 'wavelength', whatever that might signify...does not vary with > frame. Clearly it does vary with frame as shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif > Otherwise BaTh would give the wrong answer....and that is not possible. BaThwater has always been wrong, you have no clue what a frame of reference is. > Wavelength is a fixed distance...(except when a photon accelerates).. Bollocks, Sydney to London is a fixed distance and the length of an airliner is a fixed distance. Yet you can walk very slowly from Sydney to London, even a senile old duffer with gout like you. > > It is through experiments like this that we can hypothesize about the > structure > of a photon. > > Photons are obviously not just the 'point particles' that relativists > claim > they are. Wavelengths are obviously not just the 'fixed distances' that ozzie sheep shaggers claim they are. I expect you have a preferred frame of reference, Wilson. You certain have a preference for cheap ozzie plonk.
From: Inertial on 12 Sep 2009 19:04 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:eh3oa5l03f7gt81jodls7fdhmkrleeoeg4(a)4ax.com... > 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. I didn't move any start point. The cylinder is the non-rotating frame. > Typical false > relativist logic! Typical Henry unable to follow a simple example > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > > One path is longer than the other. Yes it is .. that's what I just showed > One length of rope is longer than the other > no matter how fast you pull it. That's right .. that's what i just showed. And the heads of the ropes arrive at the same place at the same time and so the marks on the rope (the wavelengths) is in phase.
From: Inertial on 12 Sep 2009 19:11 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:d09oa59al2tf0737qs20k1bn6q6ba716p4(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:38:49 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > Clearly, 'wavelength', whatever that might signify You don't know? You have a model for light, but it doesn't say what light frequency or wavelength is? > ...does not vary with frame. Except we detect that it does experimentally .. as does frequency. > Otherwise BaTh would give the wrong answer It already does > ....and that is not possible. [ sarcasm ] Oh, of course it couldn't be wrong .. Henry says it is right and Henry never lies [ /sarcasm ] > Wavelength is a fixed distance...(except when a photon accelerates).. So light is not a moving intrinsic oscillator > It is through experiments like this that we can hypothesize about the > structure > of a photon. And when you analysis the experiment, you know light cannot be travelling ballistically. > Photons are obviously not just the 'point particles' that relativists > claim > they are. Relativity itself doesn't claim anything about the nature of photons (or even if there are photons) *other than* light moves at c in all frames of reference. It does makes claims about what wavelength and frequency of light would be via Doppler. I think you are confusing relativity with quantum physics. When you say 'relativists' you mean 'physicist'. You don't know your theory, you don't know relativity .. do you know ANY physics at ALL?
From: Jonah Thomas on 12 Sep 2009 19:42
hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > 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. I've gotten bits and pieces. Communication is hard even for people who're real good at it. Society is set up so we can mostly get along without understanding each other. > >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. Yes, and neutrons, and people recently made a big deal about big molecules diffracting. And at last for light and electrons the claim is they have done it at intensities so low that only a single particle is diffracting at a time. So I want to find a way for a single particle to diffract against itself, and I have some problems imagining it. Something to do with my concept of what a "single particle" is. > >> 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? That does make sense. My only concern is how to split an electron in two. Do they get partial charges? Partial mass? What if they don't meet up again at all? Why don't we ever see them split up when they aren't recombining to do interference? These are not gotchas, they're yes-buts. If I can accept the postulates of SR I can easily accept this. It leaves a lot unexplained, like how the particles choose to split into two parts that then every time come together again, but it's possible that things work this way and somebody in the future can figure out the details about how it works. I like the idea of splitting into two pieces that reassemble a lot more than splitting into an infinite number of parts that smear out and self-interfere everywhere and then they all jump together to interact at one place. > Diffraction grating angles still operate on the 'intrinsic wavelength' > principle, on the assumption that photons have a finite cross section. > Any idea what cross-section? Does it vary with energy? Do microwave ovens have those screens with the little holes in them because microwaves are too big to get through the holes but visible light is not? (I apologise for the snark there, I don't want to make fun of you when you've been sharing your ideas. It just seemed like a funny thing to say.) > >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? People say they're in phase. That's what "coherent light" is supposed to mean. That's what makes it a laser. If each photon has more than one period, then there's nothing mysterious about in phase. ^v^v^v^v^v v^v^v^v^v ^v^v^v^v^v v^v^v^v^v^ If each photon is just one perioud then there's still nothing mysterious about it. ^v ^v ^v ^v ^v ^v ^v > 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. The less their phase matches up, the less coherent the light. I would not expect it to be an all-or-none thing. If each photon is one cycle and there's a small delay before each next burst of photons is triggered, that would have subtle consequences. Kind of like the measured wavelength would be a little longer. Etc. > >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? There are consequences that people have trouble accepting. People want to think of a particle as being in one place at one time. Tell them that the particle travels every possible path at the same time and they don't like to think that way. It sounds like the sort of double-talk you'd get from SR or something. I like your idea of having particles that only travel two paths at a time. As you increase the number of particles they will start to fill in all the gaps as if each of them had tried every possible path instead of just two, so you get your result. Somehow it sounds more plausible to me to have a particle that's in just two places at a time instead of a particle that's everywhere at once. |