The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 19:24 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090913171143.23e677ca.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >> 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. Andcoles plonks everyone who he can't convince and can see through his trickery, and once he has finished trying to play little his games with them them and failing. Congratulations on making the grade. It did take you a while, but you got there. Glad to see you're trying ot understand and keeping yourself open to the possibilities and not taking things on face value. Those who understand physics best took similar approaches.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 19:26 Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:cz9rm.137725$e%2.60966(a)newsfe13.ams2... > All mouth, no substance, and you are not going to check. You are not > even going to look at the details. You are complete waste of my time, > you don't have one simple answer, you just babble more ambiguous > nonsense and refuse to examine the data I've given you. You'll note that, like most other crackpots. Androcles accuses others of having EXACTLY the same faults that he exhibits.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 19:29 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:9bfrm.118801$I07.110855(a)newsfe04.ams2... > > "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. > > Can't do that, grandpa rides the carousel with the kids according to you, > so > there is nobody to mark it. No .. In Henry's analysis, no-one is allowed to ride on the carousel. Its too dangerous, as you need to do frame jumping to get on and off. So we'll just stand around the carousel and pretend what happens on the carousel doesn't matter.
From: Jonah Thomas on 13 Sep 2009 20:39 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: > >> > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> >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. OK. So, why? Why do we care about this point on the hypothetical nonrotating ring? It's the point that a particular pair of waves started from. So what? > >> >> 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. Agreed. > 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. But they do move.... > 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 the point I keep not getting. It looks to me like the leading edge of each of them arrives at the same time, and the trailing edge of each of them arrives at the detector at the same time, and I don't see why they would have different phases. Your explanations keep leaving that out for me. There's something that so obvious to you that you don't think to say it, that I have not gotten. > This is exactly the model my ring gyro program illustrates....the one > Jerry converted to java. Another model. Good. The last one showed me just what I expected to see and not the things you said that I didn't already get. > 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. I thought it was the moving source that makes the distance come out to c+v and c-v. And the constant speed c means the two sides will probably be out of phase when they travel different distances. > >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? I try to imagine what it is that's obvious to you that I don't see at all. And I remember the joke somebody else made, it was a riddle. You have two rings that spin 1000 times a day at the equator, one of them is set up with the axis horizontal and north-south, the other is set up with the axis horizontal and east-west. After a day you find that one has spun 1000 times and the other has spun 1001 times. Because the rotation of the earth has added one extra rotation to one of them but not the other. So, if the light waves are making their cycle relative to the ring, and the ring itself spins, they will be out of phase because that rotation has spun one of them a fraction of a cycle one way while the other has gone a fraction of a cycle the other way. Is that what you're getting at? I'm not sure I understand it but it's the only possibility I've come up with yet to figure out what you might be talking about. > >> >> >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. Let me simplify it and see if we agree about the simpler case. If we agree about that then the problem is in something the simple case leaves out. Imagine as a thought-experiment that you have a way to produce light that travels at any speed you want. (With a true emission theory you could do that; send an emitter off at some speed and some direction, and collect the light and resend it the direction you want.) So, we start with two light sources that are monochromatic and in phase, but one of them makes light in the direction we want at 1.1c and the other makes it at 0.9c. Start the fast light 1.1 distance units from the detector. Start the slow light 0.9 distance units from the detector. They arrive at the detector at the same time. They were in phase when they started. Are they in phase at the detector? > 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. I still don't see it but at least now I can imagine seeing it. I have something that doesn't quite make sense to me but that I can't say for sure won't make sense when I do see it.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 21:07
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090913203913.4eccd8d6.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Yes. You mark a point on the hypothetical nonrotating ring next to the >> rotating apparatus. > > OK. So, why? Why do we care about this point on the hypothetical > nonrotating ring? It's the point that a particular pair of waves started > from. So what? Indeed .. the question that we've been trying to get a rational answer from from Henry for a loooong time We can use those points for working out the path lengths. Think is, we've got all those worked out for the ballistic case .. the length are different, the speed of rays is different the time is the same. So now we don't need to know about what happens at those points any more. What we DO need to wokr out is what happens at the moving detector when the two rays arrive at it at the same time, with the same speed and the same frequency as measured by the detector. And in particular the phase of the waves at that time. >> Yes, it is basically the old aether model. It requires that the rays >> miraculously move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. > > I thought it was the moving source that makes the distance come out to > c+v and c-v. Velocity, not distance. But distance is (c+v)t and (c-v)t, where t is the time for the two rays to arrive at the detector (same time). > And the constant speed c means the two sides will probably > be out of phase when they travel different distances. That's correct. >> >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? > > I try to imagine what it is that's obvious to you that I don't see at > all. Noone else does :) > And I remember the joke somebody else made, it was a riddle. You > have two rings that spin 1000 times a day at the equator, one of them is > set up with the axis horizontal and north-south, the other is set up > with the axis horizontal and east-west. After a day you find that one > has spun 1000 times and the other has spun 1001 times. Because the > rotation of the earth has added one extra rotation to one of them but > not the other. > > So, if the light waves are making their cycle relative to the ring, and > the ring itself spins, they will be out of phase because that rotation > has spun one of them a fraction of a cycle one way while the other has > gone a fraction of a cycle the other way. > > Is that what you're getting at? I'm not sure I understand it but it's > the only possibility I've come up with yet to figure out what you might > be talking about. Even if the photon spin axis is perpendicular to the motion, you still get them arriving at the same phase if they are spinning for the same tiem. The effect of the 'joke' is that if you count rotations in the rotating vs non-rotating for both photons, the rotating frame will show different numbers for the *apparent* number of rotations. I'll look a bit more closely when I have time and do a simulation to double-check that what I'm saying is correct. |