The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 03:20 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:yrlrm.139458$LX3.85099(a)newsfe17.ams2... > > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message > news:b3bra514u01qgup68sauj87i1tj2i0q7va(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:29:44 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message >>>news:9bfrm.118801$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. Why, that's the nicest thing you've ever said about me :):) I guess its not something I'll expect too much more of, but thanks anyway. BTW: I'm not taking 'sides' in this .. if/when you say something that looks worthwhile I'll read it, and if/when you say something right I'll agree with you.
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 03:37 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:7ijra598uqn1g6l747h32j72if9jhi4pjo(a)4ax.com... > 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. I've agreed that the starting event is important in working out the distance and time the two rays take However, what happens at a fixed point at the location where the source was, and that remains there after the source moves on is not important. And what happens at a fixed point at the location where the detector ends up, and that remains there after the detector moves on is not important. What is important is what happens at the moving detector, as that is where the Sagnac effect takes place. >>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. Yes > 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. So .. you would be talking about a Sagnac-like experiment using sound instead of light? So I imagine a rotating platform with speakers (or some pure sound generating device, maybe a tuning-fork) and a long tube to make the sound travel around in a loop on the platform back to microphones to pick up the sound and compare the waves received. If the air didn't rotate with the platform (so not stationary wrt the pipe), then that experiment would give you the same results as SR gives, as the sound would travel different differences at the speed of sound in the inertial frame, and so give a phase difference. If the air moves with the turntable (so stationary wrt the pipe), then you'd get no phase difference at the microphone. > If they were emitting identical light rays BEFORE they were set moving, It doesn't matter what happens before they are set moving. In Sagnac the light is emitted while the turntable is already rotating. [snip as this is not sagnac] > My model is not like this. The frequency depends on speed in the moving > frame Frequency as detected where?
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 05:08 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:20:12 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message >news:yrlrm.139458$LX3.85099(a)newsfe17.ams2... >> >> "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >> news:b3bra514u01qgup68sauj87i1tj2i0q7va(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:29:44 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message >>>>news:9bfrm.118801$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. > >Why, that's the nicest thing you've ever said about me :):) Gawd! i hope Androcles never says anything nice about me....I'd be REALLY worried... >I guess its not something I'll expect too much more of, but thanks anyway. > >BTW: I'm not taking 'sides' in this .. if/when you say something that looks >worthwhile I'll read it, and if/when you say something right I'll agree with >you. > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 06:19 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:10:06 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. This isn't about sound, dear lady. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 06:28
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:53:39 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:20090914001854.7fc8ef18.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >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. If a light source moves towards you, what happens to its frequency? If the sagnac source moves towards its ultimate detection point, which is stationary in the inertial frame, what happens to its frequency, when measured at that STATIONARY point. >> 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. No they aren't. >> 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. but it DOES work. That must annoy you terribly... >[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. > >:):) > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |