The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 00:53 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090914001854.7fc8ef18.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > 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. If by classical you mean a simple aether.. then yes. >> 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? That's what I don't 'get' either. > 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. Exactly > And they are. Yeup. > 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? God only knows >> >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. And there is no slowing of light frequencies over distance here. Henry is (as usual) clutching at straws. He MUST know his analysis is wrong and doesn't work. Yet he can't admit he was wrong. Its sad, as that means he'll never learn. [snip a bit] >> 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. When there's time dilation and length contraction involved in it, yes. But in Sagnac there none of that involved (that one need take into account). Its just a constant speed of light in the inertial non-rotating frame. Its actually simpler than the ballistic case in that frame. > 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. :):)
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 00:59 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:59:34 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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? Standard doppler shift from one frame to another. have you heard of doppler shift? Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 01:10 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:ibjra518t00gk5kdg6cr00sv6r4uvqb9ul(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:59:34 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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? > > Standard doppler shift from one frame to another. > have you heard of doppler shift? Doppler shift cannot change spin rates. You do understand that Doppler shift doesn't change the waves themselves (unless its the source change speed wrt the medium eg for sound), only how an observer measures them? We've gone over this many times. You clearly don't understand the physics.
From: Androcles on 14 Sep 2009 02:25 "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 > > hahahahhahahahhhahahhaa! Perhaps she's on the side of sense. You aren't.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 02:31
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:18:54 -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: >> >> >> >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. If the starting point was not important why would the path distances be different? Sometimes you seem as clueless as inertial. >The SR model is the sme >as the classical model when the apparatus turns at slower than >relativistic speed. SR IS just aether theory in disguise. >> >Agreed. >> >> You now see why the stationary points are important. > >No, I don't. You just used them, above, to determine the different path differences. How can you now say they aren't 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. > >I still don't get it. Why do you say they were oscillating at different >frequencies? Oh for christ's sake, if a thing moves through a torus faster than another it should be obvious that it will spin through more turns than the other in the same time. Have you no idea about anything physical? >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? The photons arrive at the detector at the same time but they have been oscillating at different rates so 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. > >Agreed. But in my Sagnac example both are at 10 hertz. Well, that means the apparatus is not rotating. If you try to use the rotating frame, you will fall into a trap. There is an imaginary time factor an an imaginary path length anomaly. >> >> 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. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe That's not a standing wave. It is a doppler shifted traveling wave. The shift is opposite in the two paths. >> >> >> 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? No. At constant speed, the detector receives the same number of wavecrests per second as the source emits. That is not important. >> >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. This depends entirely on the model you use. If they were spinning flywheels, They would be in phase. If they were loud speakers, emitting sound waves, the received signals would be out of phase all the way until both speakers reached the detector. If they were emitting identical light rays BEFORE they were set moving, you will agree that there would be more 'wavelengths' between the 1.1 one and the detector and the 0.9 one and detector. Everything is identical except the distances, which presumably are not an exact multiple of the wavelength, so the signals would be out of phase at the detector. Say, one path contains N wavelengths and the other N+n. The phase difference is n. (this already means the experiment is not a fair analogy for sagnac, where there is no initial phase difference.) When they are set in motion as you described, the detector receives N+n waves from the 1.1 source PLUS any additional ones emitted during its travel time. That number = t/f. The detector receives N from the other one PLUS the same additional t/f... What does that mean? they are in phase when the both reach the detector. My model is not like this. The frequency depends on speed in the moving frame and the wave doesn't 'move up' to the detector. By that I mean the same number of wavelengths always exists between the startpoint and detector. It's like a coil spring that rotates as it moves along....and The faster it moves the faster it rotates. >> 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... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |