The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 05:20 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:n52rm.40633$tM2.19332(a)newsfe23.ams2... > > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090913034536.6ff1dded.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote >>> > >>> >> > 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? >>> > >>> > Androcles has training in electrical engineering, so he quite likely >>> > understands how radio waves are produced. >>> >>> Who knows what he knows >>> >>> Radio waves are just EM radiation .. the distinction between different >>> names 'types' of EMR is arbitrary .. just different sets of >>> frequencies. >> >> I agree and I expect Androcles agrees with your idea -- that it's all >> EMR and the frequencies are different. > > I will never agree with the cackling idiot. See .. that's the difference between someone who discusses physics honestly like me, and someone like Androcles. > I wonder where he thinks the change between being tsumanis > and being rain happens? > Rain is just water. Tsunamis are just water. > The distinction between different names 'types' of water > is arbitrary. "BAHAHAHA" And Androcles is still being trying to be a smartarse and instead showing himself to be a fool. > Killfile the troll. Killfile yourself Androcles .. do the honest posters here a favor.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 13 Sep 2009 05:38 On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:37:58 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:igpoa55gccc3161c7t51mn7nrk7ongvi79(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:04:34 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >>>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. >> >> Are you saying the ropes are flexible? > >No. I would have used rubber bands if I wanted that. >> If one rope is longer than the other, there must be a different number of >> turns >> in the two. > >Turns? You mean the marks on the rope I described .. yes there are. Let >say we put the marks on the rop at regular intervals from the head of the >rope .. then when the ropes meet the detector point at the same time, the >marks on the heads line up. > >> That means there is a phase shift where they meet. > >No .. it doesn't. The marks on the rope move WITH THE ROPE. > >> I really think this is too hard for you... > >Not at all .. you're the only one who is inconsistent and unable to >understand basic physics. OK .. you and Androcles. You really haven't a clue about this. I'll have to explain in very basic language. The emission and detection points of a particular wave element are separated by the distance vt in the inertial frame. (or the rotating frame for that matter) This means that the path lengths of the oppositely moving halves of that element are different and so they reunite out of phase. THE START AND EMISSION POINTS FOR THE NEXT ELEMENT ARE NOT THE SAME POINTS. That pair are also moving around the ring at v....BUT THEY REMAIN SEPARATED by the same amount vt. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 05:53 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:aqepa5pmhtirsgm8i09hvdtlvl2e4job6h(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:37:58 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:igpoa55gccc3161c7t51mn7nrk7ongvi79(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:04:34 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: > >>>>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. >>> >>> Are you saying the ropes are flexible? >> >>No. I would have used rubber bands if I wanted that. >>> If one rope is longer than the other, there must be a different number >>> of >>> turns >>> in the two. >> >>Turns? You mean the marks on the rope I described .. yes there are. Let >>say we put the marks on the rop at regular intervals from the head of the >>rope .. then when the ropes meet the detector point at the same time, the >>marks on the heads line up. >> >>> That means there is a phase shift where they meet. >> >>No .. it doesn't. The marks on the rope move WITH THE ROPE. >> >>> I really think this is too hard for you... >> >>Not at all .. you're the only one who is inconsistent and unable to >>understand basic physics. OK .. you and Androcles. > > You really haven't a clue about this. I understand it perfectly. > I'll have to explain in very basic > language. Oh please .. show us your delusions again > The emission and detection points of a particular wave element are > separated by > the distance vt in the inertial frame. (or the rotating frame for that > matter) Yes > This means that the path lengths of the oppositely moving halves of that > element are different Yes > and so they reunite out of phase. No .. as they are in phase at the WAVE FRONT. The part that arrives at the detector. That's how waves work. > THE START AND EMISSION POINTS FOR THE NEXT ELEMENT ARE NOT THE SAME > POINTS. Yeup. > That pair are also moving around the ring at v....BUT THEY REMAIN > SEPARATED by > the same amount vt. Yeup, you're still deluded.
From: Jerry on 13 Sep 2009 06:35 On Sep 13, 4:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in messagenews:aqepa5pmhtirsgm8i09hvdtlvl2e4job6h(a)4ax.com... > > I'll have to explain in very basic > > language. > > Oh please .. show us your delusions again > > > The emission and detection points of a particular wave element are > > separated by > > the distance vt in the inertial frame. (or the rotating frame for that > > matter) > > Yes > > > This means that the path lengths of the oppositely moving halves of that > > element are different > > Yes > > > and so they reunite out of phase. > > No .. as they are in phase at the WAVE FRONT. The part that arrives at the > detector. That's how waves work. Henri's presumption is that the waves traced out by the c+v particles and the c-v particles have the same wavelength as measured in the inertial frame. That necessarily implies that the c+v particles and the c-v particles oscillate at different frequencies. This effect is clearly demonstrated in Henri's animation as well as in my Java re-creation of his VB animation. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm Somehow or other, Henri doesn't have any problem with this. > > THE START AND EMISSION POINTS FOR THE NEXT ELEMENT ARE NOT THE SAME > > POINTS. > > Yeup. > > > That pair are also moving around the ring at v....BUT THEY REMAIN > > SEPARATED by > > the same amount vt. > > Yeup, you're still deluded Jerry
From: Jerry on 13 Sep 2009 07:06
On Sep 13, 5:35 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Sep 13, 4:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in messagenews:aqepa5pmhtirsgm8i09hvdtlvl2e4job6h(a)4ax.com... > > > I'll have to explain in very basic > > > language. > > > Oh please .. show us your delusions again > > > > The emission and detection points of a particular wave element are > > > separated by > > > the distance vt in the inertial frame. (or the rotating frame for that > > > matter) > > > Yes > > > > This means that the path lengths of the oppositely moving halves of that > > > element are different > > > Yes > > > > and so they reunite out of phase. > > > No .. as they are in phase at the WAVE FRONT. The part that arrives at the > > detector. That's how waves work. > > Henri's presumption is that the waves traced out by the c+v > particles and the c-v particles have the same wavelength as > measured in the inertial frame. > > That necessarily implies that the c+v particles and the c-v > particles oscillate at different frequencies. > > This effect is clearly demonstrated in Henri's animation as > well as in my Java re-creation of his VB animation.http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm > > Somehow or other, Henri doesn't have any problem with this. I was guilty of a pun here when using the word "wave". In conventional ballistic theory, the TRAVELING waves emitted by a moving source are of constant wavelength in all directions. In conventional ballistic theory, a stationary observer measures a frequency shift, but no wavelength shift. In Henri's variant of ballistic theory, the "WACHAMACALIT waves" are of constant wavelength (measured in the inertial frame) in all directions. In Henri's variant of ballistic theory, a stationary observer measures both a frequency shift and a wavelength shift. The frequency shift is a "double-whammy" frequency shift that is also measurable by a moving source observer. This provides the moving source observer a means of detecting his motion in absolute space. Jerry |