The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 13 Sep 2009 22:12 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "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. You don't understand. Androcles was trying to explain something that's hard to explain, and I kept slipping back into the ways of thinking that don't head where he wants, and he kept trying. And then just when it was almost working and I almost saw where he was going, I started spending most of my time trying to understand Wilson's Sagnac stuff, things that Androcles knows is wrong anyway, something that he knows has no possible payoff. And it's true that part of why I did that was that Androcles is doing something complicated and hard to understand, while Wilson on Sagnac is something that ought to be simple and easy. And indeed I did find a simple easy way to look at it that looks correct to me, that unfortunately doesn't match up to what Wilson says. I was doing something easy instead of something hard, and it isn't inappropriate for Androcles to be annoyed at me for it. > 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. I'll go back and try to understand Androcles's idea when I'm ready, and maybe he'll relent and help me with the hardest parts. Also by that time I may have rediscovered part of it. I haven't seen through his trickery. I think he might very likely be onto something that I don't understand yet. I sort of see his metaphor of Sagnac as coriolis effect. You have the two paths with different distances traveled. It makes a poetic kind of sense and maybe at some time I'll see a more literal sense to it.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 22:10 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090913221209.468e1c67.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "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. > > You don't understand. Oh no .. I do. We've all had experience with him here :) > Androcles was trying to explain something that's > hard to explain, and I kept slipping back into the ways of thinking that > don't head where he wants, and he kept trying. And then just when it was > almost working and I almost saw where he was going, I started spending > most of my time trying to understand Wilson's Sagnac stuff, things that > Androcles knows is wrong anyway, something that he knows has no possible > payoff. And it's true that part of why I did that was that Androcles is > doing something complicated and hard to understand, while Wilson on > Sagnac is something that ought to be simple and easy. And indeed I did > find a simple easy way to look at it that looks correct to me, that > unfortunately doesn't match up to what Wilson says. I was doing > something easy instead of something hard, and it isn't inappropriate for > Androcles to be annoyed at me for it. > >> 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. > > I'll go back and try to understand Androcles's idea when I'm ready, and > maybe he'll relent and help me with the hardest parts. Also by that time > I may have rediscovered part of it. I haven't seen through his trickery. > I think he might very likely be onto something that I don't understand > yet. I sort of see his metaphor of Sagnac as coriolis effect. You have > the two paths with different distances traveled. It makes a poetic kind > of sense and maybe at some time I'll see a more literal sense to it.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 13 Sep 2009 22:38 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:29:44 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message >news:9bfrm.118801$I07.110855(a)newsfe04.ams2... >> >> "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>> 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. Yes, we'll do exactly what every other relativist does. inertial doesn't know what side she's on hahahahhahahahhhahahhaa! Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 13 Sep 2009 22:45 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:07:32 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. It isn't. Jerry has reproduced my simmulation if you want to usehis java instead of my ..exe. Ignore his stupid additions. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 13 Sep 2009 22:47
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:12:09 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "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. > >You don't understand. Androcles was trying to explain something that's >hard to explain, and I kept slipping back into the ways of thinking that >don't head where he wants, and he kept trying. And then just when it was >almost working and I almost saw where he was going, I started spending >most of my time trying to understand Wilson's Sagnac stuff, things that >Androcles knows is wrong anyway, something that he knows has no possible >payoff. And it's true that part of why I did that was that Androcles is >doing something complicated and hard to understand, while Wilson on >Sagnac is something that ought to be simple and easy. And indeed I did >find a simple easy way to look at it that looks correct to me, that >unfortunately doesn't match up to what Wilson says. I was doing >something easy instead of something hard, and it isn't inappropriate for >Androcles to be annoyed at me for it. > >> 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. > >I'll go back and try to understand Androcles's idea when I'm ready, and >maybe he'll relent and help me with the hardest parts. Also by that time >I may have rediscovered part of it. I haven't seen through his trickery. >I think he might very likely be onto something that I don't understand >yet. I sort of see his metaphor of Sagnac as coriolis effect. You have >the two paths with different distances traveled. It makes a poetic kind >of sense and maybe at some time I'll see a more literal sense to it. hahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha ahahahhahahahahhahahahahah! Whatever you do, don't mention the Concorde..... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |