The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 13 Sep 2009 17:11 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >> 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? OK. THe first imagined objection to classical theory was that classical theory implied that there should be some sort of natural at-rest frame for light waves to travel in, the frame of the aether. But the MM experiment found no evidence for such a frame and it took complicated ad hoc assumptions to keep the aether and still have MM measure around zero. Ritz's emission theory gets around that, light travels at c relative to the frame of its source, and the MM experiment will give a velocity of c regardless. The second imagined objection was that if two communicators were together traveling at v together, they would both believe their messages travel at c to the other. But someone who is traveling at -v relative to them would think the messages travel at c+v and c-v and in various ways that does not add up or cancel out. Different observers would think that the same events happen in different orders. SR handles that by having light always travel at c with length compression and time dilation to correct the various errors that causes. Ritz's emission theory handles that by having the light actually move at c+v and c-v, and so far I have seen no need for changes in length and timing to have things work out. > > 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. It's taking me a long time to get up to speed on basic physics. Throw in everything I'd need to know about astronomy and it looks like it would take a lot longer. > > 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? More ambiguous babble from my point of view. http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm In these four papers DeSitter uses one example double star -- beta Aurigae. He says the eccentricity is low and therefore the effect of v on light must always be low. He mentions some other double stars in one paper -- delta Equulei, zeta Herculis. Maybe the important work was done in other papers which may become available. Or maybe there is more recent relevant work that describes this class of objections to emission theory. What I have seen so far from DeSitter is not impressive. > > 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* I'm getting there. Maybe you'd like to talk with me in a few months when I've made more progress.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 13 Sep 2009 18:24 On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:30:01 -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: >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> There are two rotations, the ring is rotating and the photons are >> >> rotating around the ring. >> >> >> >> Here it is in the nonrotating frame. the distance between the >> >emission> and detection points is vt....where t is the travel time >> >around the> ring. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm >> >> >> >> If you can't understand that you shouldn't be here. >> > >> >I said back what I understood you to say, and you didn't tell me >> >whether I got it right. >> > >> >The emission point is the point where the first wave we're interested >> >in started out. True or false? >> >> You can look at it that way if you like. BUT THE POINT IS STATIONARY >> IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. > >OK. So you can't mark that point on the rotating apparatus. You could, >say, put a rock besice the apparatus where the first wave you care about >starts. Yes. You mark a point on the hypothetical nonrotating ring next to the rotating apparatus. >> >> Even SR gets that right. It's simple stuff. >> > >> >Yes. And still you have ten waves present at a time in each >> >direction, and each of them has the same wavelength. >> >> No you don't. You have 10 + vt/L in one and 10-vt/L in the other. > >Count them as they are produced. At the first wave you make one in each >direction. That's one. At the second wave you make one wave in each >direction. That's two. Three. Four. Five. ... Ten. > >Ten in each direction. Number ten is just finishing its creation as >number one begins to be destroyed by the detector. Let's use inertial's example...only we'll do it properly. When an element is being emitted from the source/detector, another wavecrest is being detected at the same location. This latter was emitted prior to the currently emitted one. It was NOT emitted from the current source/detector position. For the two rays, one traveled a distance 2piR+vt and the other 2piR-vt. There is no dispute about this. Wrap two lengths of rope around a cylinder. One is longer than the other to represent the two different path lengths mentioned above. Now, imagine that the rope doesn't move and one strand is hollow... like a helical coil would around the ring between the emission and detection points. According to the model, each light element moves around the helix at c+v one way and c-v the other. They both travel for the same time.. BUT because of their different speeds, one spins faster around the coil than the other. Both halves get to the detector at the same instant BUT ONE HAS COMPLETED MORE TURNS THAN THE OTHER. So the phases are different when they meet. This is exactly the model my ring gyro program illustrates....the one Jerry converted to java. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe I hope this fills in the gaps. >> The number of wavecrests that pass any stationary point marked on the >> nonrotating ring is NOT ten. > >Yes. But why count the number that pass a stationary point when the >detector is moving? Isn't it wavecrests that pass the detector that >count? >> If you can understand the SR 'explanation' you should be able to >> understand the BaTh one too. There is basically very little >> difference. > >The difference I see is that the SR explanation has the speed of light >constant in both directions. So their waves are out of phase when they >meet. Yes, it is basically the old aether model. It requires that the rays miraculously move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. > >Agreed, no doppler shift. To get the phase different you'd have them get >out of phase by a constant amount and then they would all arrive at the >same speed but one side would be slow consistently by that constant >amount. But your moving picture does not show that. It shows them >arriving at the same time, every time. Ok, I think you will get the picture now from my 'hollow rope' model. So where do we go from here? There are no 'hollow ropes' wound around a ring gyro but this is a model that is theoretically sound and gives the right result. What might it tell us about the true nature of light? >> >> >That's the part I don't understand, why the number of wavelengths >> >is> >different. >> >> >> >> Because the pathlengths are different. If you didn't keep reverting >> >to> the rotating frame you would understand that. >> > >> >At this point in my imagination Androcles is saying the pathlengths >> >are history. Why do the pathlengths matter? >> >> Androcles is totally confused about Sagnac. He still thinks the >> detector is not rotating with the apparatus. > >His pictures don't show the detector standing still. >At this point we agree about most of the facts. The only thing I don't >understand is why you say the waves in the different directions are out >of phase. You show each wave arriving at the detector at the same time. >How are they out of phase? Study the above explanation. One element spins faster inside the torus than the other. (That's equivalent to the doppler shift I have talked about in the inertial frame). Even though the two halves travel for the same time, one has completed more turns than the other when they meet. I'm sorry it took me so long to provide a really simple mechanical model but it has been so obvious to me all along that I couldn't get myself down to basics. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 18:47 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:tbkqa59v0palp2kd1ss4kkfng75i89hqlv(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:53:11 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > there are no wave fronts, idiot. You're just so fond of making statements that show you're an idiot, aren't you? Rays can't arrive without a wave-front. Some part of the wave arrives first.. That is the wave-front. The leading edge.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 18:59 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:l5lqa55bm93aesllktguj9tp026kste9d8(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:09:50 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:cupoa5ljmlfmu5o0le74firrmeid8sf497(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:09:28 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>OK. The number of wavecrests leaving the source in my example is ten per >>>>second, in any frame. >> >>That's correct >> >>> The number of wavecrests that pass any stationary point marked on the >>> nonrotating ring is NOT ten. >> >>Yeup >> >>But the detector in Sagnac is NOT a stationary point > > Let me try to explain in even mire basic terms. (I will try to imagine I > am > talking to a Chimp) Obviously this is what you do when you're at home talking to yourself about how clever you are. > In the inertial frame, the emission and detection points OF A PARTICULAR > PHOTON > ELEMENT are stationary They are events .. and events don't move. They are stationary in every frame. But the source has instantaneous velocity, and the detector has instantaneous velocity. > and are separated by the distance vt. (even your SR > agrees) Yeup .. for a given ray > The emission and detection points OF the NEXT PARTICULAR PHOTON ELEMENT > are > also stationary..... They are events .. events don't move. But the source and detector has instantaneous velocities > BUT THEY ARE DISPLACED FROM THE PREVIOUS ONES. Yes they are > Both points are progressively 'moving' because different elememts are > being > progressivlely emitted but they are always separated by 2piR+vt and > 2piR-vt for > the two rays. Yes they are. Because the detector and source are moving Why are you harping on like a fool about the things that we all agree with about the ballistic analysis. Probably because its the only bit you get right, and you like being right. You NEED to be right. >>It moves and so also gets 10 per second >> >>> If you can understand the SR 'explanation' you should be able to >>> understand the >>> BaTh one too. There is basically very little difference. >> >>Except the SR one predicts the observed result and ballistic doesn't. But >>other than that minor difference ...;) >> >>> Androcles is totally confused about Sagnac. He still thinks the detector >>> is not >>> rotating with the apparatus. >> >>You're such a hypocrite .. that is exactly what your analysis assumes as >>well. You've even said that how the ray arrive at the detector in Sagnac >>is >>not relevant. BAHAHAHAHA > > You simply don't have the intelligece for this. I clearly have far more than you. Your problem is that the intelligence you have is being stifled by your obsessive delusion that ballistic theory MUST be right. If you instead put it to use trying again to understand SR (Which I'm sure you failed to do if/when you first studied physics), and look at the whole thing rationally, then you might be someone with a point of view worth listening to.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 19:06
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:thlqa518ssespdbndogd5rbcd84qffp6mt(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:30:01 -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: >>> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> There are two rotations, the ring is rotating and the photons are >>> >> rotating around the ring. >>> >> >>> >> Here it is in the nonrotating frame. the distance between the >>> >emission> and detection points is vt....where t is the travel time >>> >around the> ring. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm >>> >> >>> >> If you can't understand that you shouldn't be here. >>> > >>> >I said back what I understood you to say, and you didn't tell me >>> >whether I got it right. >>> > >>> >The emission point is the point where the first wave we're interested >>> >in started out. True or false? >>> >>> You can look at it that way if you like. BUT THE POINT IS STATIONARY >>> IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. >> >>OK. So you can't mark that point on the rotating apparatus. You could, >>say, put a rock besice the apparatus where the first wave you care about >>starts. > > Yes. You mark a point on the hypothetical nonrotating ring next to the > rotating > apparatus. > > >>> >> Even SR gets that right. It's simple stuff. >>> > >>> >Yes. And still you have ten waves present at a time in each >>> >direction, and each of them has the same wavelength. >>> >>> No you don't. You have 10 + vt/L in one and 10-vt/L in the other. >> >>Count them as they are produced. At the first wave you make one in each >>direction. That's one. At the second wave you make one wave in each >>direction. That's two. Three. Four. Five. ... Ten. >> >>Ten in each direction. Number ten is just finishing its creation as >>number one begins to be destroyed by the detector. > > Let's use inertial's example...only we'll do it properly. This should be interesting > When an element is being emitted from the source/detector, another > wavecrest is > being detected at the same location. This latter was emitted prior to the > currently emitted one. It was NOT emitted from the current source/detector > position. For the two rays, one traveled a distance 2piR+vt and the other > 2piR-vt. There is no dispute about this. > > Wrap two lengths of rope around a cylinder. One is longer than the other > to > represent the two different path lengths mentioned above. > > Now, imagine that the rope doesn't move and one strand is hollow... like a > helical coil would around the ring between the emission and detection > points. > > According to the model, each light element moves around the helix at c+v > one > way and c-v the other. They both travel for the same time.. BUT because of > their different speeds, one spins faster around the coil than the other. > Both > halves get to the detector at the same instant BUT ONE HAS COMPLETED MORE > TURNS > THAN THE OTHER. Noone is arguing that > So the phases are different when they meet. But you've not shown that to be that case. Ever > This is exactly the model my ring gyro program illustrates....the one > Jerry > converted to java. > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe > > I hope this fills in the gaps. > >>> The number of wavecrests that pass any stationary point marked on the >>> nonrotating ring is NOT ten. >> >>Yes. But why count the number that pass a stationary point when the >>detector is moving? Isn't it wavecrests that pass the detector that >>count? > >>> If you can understand the SR 'explanation' you should be able to >>> understand the BaTh one too. There is basically very little >>> difference. >> >>The difference I see is that the SR explanation has the speed of light >>constant in both directions. So their waves are out of phase when they >>meet. > > Yes, it is basically the old aether model. It requires that the rays > miraculously move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. No miracle required > >> >>Agreed, no doppler shift. To get the phase different you'd have them get >>out of phase by a constant amount and then they would all arrive at the >>same speed but one side would be slow consistently by that constant >>amount. But your moving picture does not show that. It shows them >>arriving at the same time, every time. > > Ok, I think you will get the picture now from my 'hollow rope' model. > > So where do we go from here? There are no 'hollow ropes' wound around a > ring > gyro but this is a model that is theoretically sound and gives the right > result. What might it tell us about the true nature of light? > >>> >> >That's the part I don't understand, why the number of wavelengths >>> >is> >different. >>> >> >>> >> Because the pathlengths are different. If you didn't keep reverting >>> >to> the rotating frame you would understand that. >>> > >>> >At this point in my imagination Androcles is saying the pathlengths >>> >are history. Why do the pathlengths matter? >>> >>> Androcles is totally confused about Sagnac. He still thinks the >>> detector is not rotating with the apparatus. >> >>His pictures don't show the detector standing still. > >>At this point we agree about most of the facts. The only thing I don't >>understand is why you say the waves in the different directions are out >>of phase. You show each wave arriving at the detector at the same time. >>How are they out of phase? > > Study the above explanation. One element spins faster inside the torus > than the > other. Why? Its the same light .. just going in two different directions. What makes it spin faster? Why doesn't the source and detector see it spin faster, as observed rate of spin is the same in all frames (ignoring SR as we are in this analysis). Your analysis doesn't stand up to being physical .. it is self-contradictory. |