The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 22:58 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:b3bra514u01qgup68sauj87i1tj2i0q7va(a)4ax.com... > 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 The sad thing is that you think this is about sides.
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 22:59 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:eebra5p2um25q5kmft4m3fo31l997588o4(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:07:32 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: >>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. So how does the spin rate change?
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 13 Sep 2009 23:09 On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:39:13 -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: >> >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? Why does SR care about the points on the nonrotating frame? ....same question, same answer, silly. >> >> >> 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. You now see why the stationary points are important. >> 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.... Not MY ropes. Photons move through the torus. >> 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. They arrive at the same instant...but because they have been oscillating at differnet frequencies (or: spinning around inside the torus at different rates) they are not in phase. >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. OK, your friend has two flywheels. He spins one at a constant 10 hz and the other at a constant 11 hz. He then puts them on a train and sends them to you. The fast one immediately slows to 10 hz on arrival. They both traveled for the same time...does that mean they are in phase when they arrive? Of course not. There is no connection. >> 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. that's what they claim...which requires what I said...that the rays 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? > >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. That was my riddle...an example of why the use of rotating frames can lead to mistakes. >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. It wasn't what I am saying but it is something that I have considered quite seriously. there is another possibility too. Light experiences a 180 degree phase shift at the splitting mirror....but neither of these is necessary. My toroidal rope model is perfectly adequate. >> >> >> >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? You have described the SR analysis perfectly.....BACKWARDS... >> 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. Open the box with the spinning flywheels... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 23:20 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:nmbra51idmveqtvjunqp0n5ko3vi4qqjtr(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:39:13 -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: > >>> >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? > > Why does SR care about the points on the nonrotating frame? ....same > question, > same answer, silly. Any analysis cares about the three events (photon emission event, first ray meeting detector event, and second ray meeting detector event). They also care about the instantaneous velocity of the source and detector (as appropriate) at those events. And the speed, frequency and phase of the photons. Your analysis is almost correct .. up until the part where we talk about what happens at the detector .. which you claim isn't relevant. In ballistic theory, we know the photon frequency and phase and speed relative to the source when emitted, we know the time taken to travel to the detector is the same, we know the photon frequency and speed relative to the detector when photons arrive. For some reason you think that despite the speed and frequency and time being the same, that the phase difference between the leading edge of the waves has changed from zero to something non-zero over the duration of the experiment. So far you've no rationale for that position, other than your insistence that ballistic theory has to be correct, regardless of the facts.
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 00:18
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: > > >> >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? > > Why does SR care about the points on the nonrotating frame? ....same > question, same answer, silly. I don't get it. The classical model has the light travel at the same speed so if it goes different distances it will be out of phase. The important thing is not the point it started from but the fact that it travels different distances at the same speed. The SR model is the sme as the classical model when the apparatus turns at slower than relativistic speed. > >> >> >> 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. > > You now see why the stationary points are important. No, I don't. > >> 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.... > > Not MY ropes. Photons move through the torus. > >> 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. > > They arrive at the same instant...but because they have been > oscillating at differnet frequencies (or: spinning around inside the > torus at different rates) they are not in phase. I still don't get it. Why do you say they were oscillating at different frequencies? But I see that I did something stupid with my example. By making the total distance an even number of wavelengths, I set it up so that they might accidentally wind up in phase even if they should not be. Say that one goes nine cycles even while the other goes eleven cycles even, they match up even though 9 and 11 are different whole numbers. So instead let's make the total length a bit larger. 10 hertz. The ring rotates at 0.1c. The total length is 1.025 light-seconds. So the forward wavecrests move at 1.1c and the backward wavecrests move at 0.9 c. They both arrive at the detector at 1.025 seconds, when the forward wavecrest has -- oscillated? The wavecrest didn't oscillate, it moved forward. OK, pick a stationary point and at 1.025 seconds 10.25 wavecrests will have passed in the forward direction and 9.75 wavecrests will have passed in the backward direction. They will be out of phase at that stationary point, and also traveling in opposite directions! But what matters isn't a stationary point anyway. What matters is whether they're in phase at the detector. And they are. The wavecrests arrive at the detector at the same time. The wave troughs arrive at the detector at the same time. What more do you want for them to be in phase at the detector? > >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. > > OK, your friend has two flywheels. He spins one at a constant 10 hz > and the other at a constant 11 hz. He then puts them on a train and > sends them to you. The fast one immediately slows to 10 hz on arrival. > They both traveled for the same time...does that mean they are in > phase when they arrive? Of course not. There is no connection. Agreed. But in my Sagnac example both are at 10 hertz. > >> 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. No, this is useless. You drew standing waves. You need the wavecrests themselves to move forward at the speed of the wave while the source moves at a slower rate. > >> >> 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? Isn't it? > >> >> 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. > > that's what they claim...which requires what I said...that the rays > move at c+v and c-v WRT THE SOURCE. I keep forgetting my promise to myself not to argue about SR. SR is hard to think about and easy to mess up trying to think about. I'm hoping for a simpler alternative. When I argue about SR it does not help me create or test or understand a simpler alternative, and chances are it doesn't help me understand SR. I need to remember not to do that. > >> >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. > > That was my riddle...an example of why the use of rotating frames can > lead to mistakes. > > >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. > > It wasn't what I am saying but it is something that I have considered > quite seriously. there is another possibility too. Light experiences a > 180 degree phase shift at the splitting mirror....but neither of these > is necessary. My toroidal rope model is perfectly adequate. > > >> >> >> >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 in the same linear direction > >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? When they travel in the same direction in a straight line, for 1.1 distance at 1.1 speed versus 0.9 distance at 0.9 speed. > You have described the SR analysis perfectly.....BACKWARDS... I wasn't clear enough. When there is no rotation to confuse things but only straightline motion in the same direction, do they get out of phase this way? > >> 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. > > Open the box with the spinning flywheels... |