The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 13 Sep 2009 11:16 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090913104542.15519570.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Yes, in reality. Although as Androcles points out, if your only way >> > to measure the wavelength of the moving wave is to travel from one >> > wavecrest to the other at some speed with a tapemeasure, and you >> > can't accurately measure your speed and the wave's speed, then you >> > have no way to know what the wavelength actually is. >> >> There are a lot more instruments based on standing waves >> than propagating waves. Even the present standard for the >> speed of light is based on a standing wave. >> >> ~Slotted lines~ >> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/mwmeas.html >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Modern_methods > > Thank you! Those look like useful links, with a wealth of information > buried in the first one like secret treasure. > > I was interested in the claim that with modern nanosecond-scale timers > you can actually measure the delay for light to travel known distances. > That might allow some potentially-new experiments. On Aug 16, 11:10 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have trouble thinking about these things with words, without the math. > People get the words wrong a lot. Like, popular descriptions of > relativity used to say that time dilation could in theory let somebody > go to a distant star and come back to meet his > great-great-great-grandchildren. They didn't think that time would > contract when he slowed down, and contract more when he accelerated to > come back, and then dilate back to normal when he slowed down to arrive. > > At least the math says things kind of unambiguously. You seem to have come quite a long way from Einstein's relative time transformation bullshit. Tell me, is spacetime curvature convex or concave? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm Only...err... with the unambiguous kind of math, please.
From: Jonah Thomas on 13 Sep 2009 12:38 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, in reality. Although as Androcles points out, if your only > >way> > to measure the wavelength of the moving wave is to travel from > >one> > wavecrest to the other at some speed with a tapemeasure, and > >you> > can't accurately measure your speed and the wave's speed, then > >you> > have no way to know what the wavelength actually is. > >> > >> There are a lot more instruments based on standing waves > >> than propagating waves. Even the present standard for the > >> speed of light is based on a standing wave. > >> > >> ~Slotted lines~ > >> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/mwmeas.html > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Modern_methods > > > > Thank you! Those look like useful links, with a wealth of > > information buried in the first one like secret treasure. > > > > I was interested in the claim that with modern nanosecond-scale > > timers you can actually measure the delay for light to travel known > > distances. That might allow some potentially-new experiments. > > On Aug 16, 11:10 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I have trouble thinking about these things with words, without the > > math. People get the words wrong a lot. Like, popular descriptions > > of relativity used to say that time dilation could in theory let > > somebody go to a distant star and come back to meet his > > great-great-great-grandchildren. They didn't think that time would > > contract when he slowed down, and contract more when he accelerated > > to come back, and then dilate back to normal when he slowed down to > > arrive. > > > > At least the math says things kind of unambiguously. > > You seem to have come quite a long way from Einstein's relative time > transformation bullshit. > Tell me, is spacetime curvature convex or concave? > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm > > Only...err... with the unambiguous kind of math, please. I don't know. I haven't looked at that yet. So far what I see is a kind of emission theory that gets past some of the same objections to classical theory that SR gets past. The traditional objections to that emission theory look bogus although there could be some astronomical results that would be valid -- I haven't checked and don't particularly intend to. I found four of DeSitter's original papers (translated from german) and they are very short and contain essentially no data, they refer to well-known facts about double stars and mention only one double star by name or number. There could be modern objections that disprove it. Inertial gave a link that presents some of those and I haven't looked at them closely. They tend to be indirect arguments from things that were not intended to test emission theories. One that looked potentially promising was the claim that the very-short-pulse x-ray lasers could not make pulses that short under emission theory because the flowing gas at the back would not have time for its light to reach the front of the tube before the pulse should be over. I haven't looked at any details about that, including the evidence that the gas at the back end even participates. If this emission theory works out, then it should be possible to do relativity in a euclidean space. If time dilation turns out to be real it could be euclidean time dilation. Or maybe that will be unnecessary.
From: Jonah Thomas on 13 Sep 2009 12:59 Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, in reality. Although as Androcles points out, if your only > >way> > to measure the wavelength of the moving wave is to travel from > >one> > wavecrest to the other at some speed with a tapemeasure, and > >you> > can't accurately measure your speed and the wave's speed, then > >you> > have no way to know what the wavelength actually is. > >> > >> There are a lot more instruments based on standing waves > >> than propagating waves. Even the present standard for the > >> speed of light is based on a standing wave. > >> > >> ~Slotted lines~ > >> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/mwmeas.html > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Modern_methods > > > >Thank you! Those look like useful links, with a wealth of information > >buried in the first one like secret treasure. > > > >I was interested in the claim that with modern nanosecond-scale > >timers you can actually measure the delay for light to travel known > >distances. That might allow some potentially-new experiments. > > today we are talking femtoseconds, that is 1000x1000 less than nanos. > this is year 2009, not 1909. I expected something like that might be possible since I read about a computer chip that measured picoseconds. As a talking-point they connected a keyboard to it with each key wired to a wire one inch longer or so, and detected which key was pressed by the time it took the wire to reach equilibrium when they introduced an electric potential. So I could imagine a test where you open a shutter (unblack a liquid crystal? something faster?) and measure the time it takes for light from two different stars to arrive past the shutter to a sensor. One red-shifted, one blue-shifted. Relatively small differences in lightspeed might be detectable. There's the problem that we'd want two stars with different redshifts that are fairly close together, since if they are on opposite sides of the sky and reflected together that might change their speeds. It might be enough to have separate "shutters" and sensors and timers, and just measure how much slower the signal is that says the shutter was opened compared to the light signal. Of course it doesn't help that the theory about such things has gotten so complex that it takes an expert to even say what a result means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_velocity
From: Androcles on 13 Sep 2009 13:00 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090913123813.0f1eb6a3.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Yes, in reality. Although as Androcles points out, if your only >> >way> > to measure the wavelength of the moving wave is to travel from >> >one> > wavecrest to the other at some speed with a tapemeasure, and >> >you> > can't accurately measure your speed and the wave's speed, then >> >you> > have no way to know what the wavelength actually is. >> >> >> >> There are a lot more instruments based on standing waves >> >> than propagating waves. Even the present standard for the >> >> speed of light is based on a standing wave. >> >> >> >> ~Slotted lines~ >> >> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/mwmeas.html >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Modern_methods >> > >> > Thank you! Those look like useful links, with a wealth of >> > information buried in the first one like secret treasure. >> > >> > I was interested in the claim that with modern nanosecond-scale >> > timers you can actually measure the delay for light to travel known >> > distances. That might allow some potentially-new experiments. >> >> On Aug 16, 11:10 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I have trouble thinking about these things with words, without the >> > math. People get the words wrong a lot. Like, popular descriptions >> > of relativity used to say that time dilation could in theory let >> > somebody go to a distant star and come back to meet his >> > great-great-great-grandchildren. They didn't think that time would >> > contract when he slowed down, and contract more when he accelerated >> > to come back, and then dilate back to normal when he slowed down to >> > arrive. >> > >> > At least the math says things kind of unambiguously. >> >> You seem to have come quite a long way from Einstein's relative time >> transformation bullshit. >> Tell me, is spacetime curvature convex or concave? >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm >> >> Only...err... with the unambiguous kind of math, please. > > I don't know. I haven't looked at that yet. > > So far what I see is a kind of emission theory that gets past some of > the same objections to classical theory that SR gets past. Instead of mumbling vaguely about your imagined ambiguous objections, why not say exactly what the hell you are babbling about? > The > traditional objections to that emission theory look bogus although there > could be some astronomical results that would be valid -- I haven't > checked and don't particularly intend to. In other words you wish to remain ambiguous. > I found four of DeSitter's > original papers (translated from german) and they are very short and > contain essentially no data, they refer to well-known facts about double > stars and mention only one double star by name or number. Is this impressive or just more well-known ambiguous babble? > There could be modern objections that disprove it. Inertial gave a link > that presents some of those and I haven't looked at them closely. They > tend to be indirect arguments from things that were not intended to test > emission theories. One that looked potentially promising was the claim > that the very-short-pulse x-ray lasers could not make pulses that short > under emission theory because the flowing gas at the back would not have > time for its light to reach the front of the tube before the pulse > should be over. I haven't looked at any details about that, including > the evidence that the gas at the back end even participates. > So you are just babbling about it. > If this emission theory works out, then it should be possible to do > relativity in a euclidean space. If time dilation turns out to be real > it could be euclidean time dilation. Or maybe that will be unnecessary. All mouth, no substance, and you are not going to check. You are not even going to look at the details. You are complete waste of my time, you don't have one simple answer, you just babble more ambiguous nonsense and refuse to examine the data I've given you. Go talk to the Inert troll and the senile old fool, you are dead wood. *plonk*
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 13 Sep 2009 13:53
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:59:31 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Yes, in reality. Although as Androcles points out, if your only >> >way> > to measure the wavelength of the moving wave is to travel from >> >one> > wavecrest to the other at some speed with a tapemeasure, and >> >you> > can't accurately measure your speed and the wave's speed, then >> >you> > have no way to know what the wavelength actually is. >> >> >> >> There are a lot more instruments based on standing waves >> >> than propagating waves. Even the present standard for the >> >> speed of light is based on a standing wave. >> >> >> >> ~Slotted lines~ >> >> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/mwmeas.html >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Modern_methods >> > >> >Thank you! Those look like useful links, with a wealth of information >> >buried in the first one like secret treasure. >> > >> >I was interested in the claim that with modern nanosecond-scale >> >timers you can actually measure the delay for light to travel known >> >distances. That might allow some potentially-new experiments. >> >> today we are talking femtoseconds, that is 1000x1000 less than nanos. >> this is year 2009, not 1909. > >I expected something like that might be possible since I read about a >computer chip that measured picoseconds. As a talking-point they >connected a keyboard to it with each key wired to a wire one inch longer >or so, and detected which key was pressed by the time it took the wire >to reach equilibrium when they introduced an electric potential. > >So I could imagine a test where you open a shutter (unblack a liquid >crystal? something faster?) and measure the time it takes for light from >two different stars to arrive past the shutter to a sensor. One >red-shifted, one blue-shifted. Relatively small differences in >lightspeed might be detectable. There's the problem that we'd want two >stars with different redshifts that are fairly close together, since if >they are on opposite sides of the sky and reflected together that might >change their speeds. > >It might be enough to have separate "shutters" and sensors and timers, >and just measure how much slower the signal is that says the shutter was >opened compared to the light signal. > >Of course it doesn't help that the theory about such things has gotten >so complex that it takes an expert to even say what a result means. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_velocity Why so complicated? Shutters. Time measurements in picosec. Just put a Fizeau toothed wheel setup or a Marinov apparatus into the light beam of the telescope. w. |