The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 06:40 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:37:52 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:7ijra598uqn1g6l747h32j72if9jhi4pjo(a)4ax.com... >>>> > >>>> >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 It is no more important than the detection event. >However, what happens at a fixed point at the location where the source was, >and what 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. You must not regard light as being a simple oscillator. It doesn't behave like that. >>>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. Yes. If you look closely, you will find that every aspevct of SR is based on the aether principle. It is nothing but LET in disguise. >> 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. I'm talking about your above experiment. > >[snip as this is not sagnac] Why snip your own experiment ? >> My model is not like this. The frequency depends on speed in the moving >> frame > >Frequency as detected where? At the ultimate detection point for that ray element. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 14 Sep 2009 07:45 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:3u1sa59naj83sk3iloo8j7cjdudn8gu8fg(a)4ax.com... > 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 did say something nice about you, I called you a drunken ozzie sheep shagger. "A pure oscillator, such as a spinning wheel, has no natural wavelength in any frame. " - Wilson. news:r09d459u0mreghgk5udcchd7i60qt0sjud(a)4ax.com "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. news:1193906355.448067.162590(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com The way you contradict yourself I could have called you another Einstein. Wilson...World's second greatest SciFi writer.. >>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 > >
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 08:39 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: > >> >> 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'll try to think it out. > >> >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? They are of historical interest. > >> >> 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? You have the torus stationary on the cylinder and not sliding along the cylinder. Why is that? > >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. They're also traveling at different speeds. > >> >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. Ten times a second, both emitters start a new wave. That looks like 10 hertz to me. > >> >> 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 wave you drew is stationary in the inertial frame. The wavecrests do not move around the circle, they just sit there while something is added to the ends. Stationary wave. > >> >> >> 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. That isn't important if they get a phase change from the very first and then keep arriving at a constant rate. > >> >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. I don't see that a 180 degree shift would help, we need a shift that is proportional to v. But does the light really get a 180 degree phase shift there? That would be interesting. > >> >> >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. Yes, I agree. > 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. I have trouble imagining it with sound because sound has air that determines the speed. Maybe one tube of air at higher pressure and one with low pressure, to change the speed? To give them the same wavelength they would need different frequencies, since the speed would be different. Or to give them the same frequency they would need different wavelengths. Either way they would not be in phase until they reach the detector, and at that point they would be in phase. Agreed? > 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. I'm not setting anything moving except the waves. One of them travels at 1.1 speed for 1.1 distance, and the other travels at 0.9 speed for 0.9 distance. > 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.) One of them travels at 0.9 speed at frequency 10. Its wavelength then is ..9/10=.09 The other travels at 1.1 speed at frequency 10. Its wavelength is 1.1/10 = .11 The slow one travels 0.9 distance, at that time it completes 10 full cycles. The fast one travels 1.1 distance and completes 10 full cycles. They are in phase. But the wavelengths are different. I've been saying all along tha the wavelengths should be the same in the emission-theory Sagnac, and in this simpler case they are not. > 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. This is a simpler case that I hope we can agree on. I say that in the Sagnac experiment the waves do "move up" to the detector. One of them does so at speed 1.1 while the detector moves away from it at speed 0.1, and the other does so at speed 0.9 while the detector moves toward it at speed 0.1 . I believe we're zeroing in on the difference in our models. > >> 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?
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 07:16 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:sq6sa5lbp7f54ch4k9858n26lr02d1drfk(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:37:52 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:7ijra598uqn1g6l747h32j72if9jhi4pjo(a)4ax.com... > >>>>> > >>>>> >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 > > It is no more important than the detection event. Indeed.. what happens at the detection event is the whole crux of the matter. >>However, what happens at a fixed point at the location where the source >>was, >>and what 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. > > You must not regard light as being a simple oscillator. Why did you say that .. I didn't say or imply that it was. > It doesn't behave like > that. I know that .. but you keep saying that's what it is. >>>>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. > > Yes. If you look closely, you will find that every aspevct of SR is based > on > the aether principle. Nope > It is nothing but LET in disguise. They are very different, except in their maths. Same math, different physcial interpretation. But they do both get Sagnac correct. >>> 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. > > I'm talking about your above experiment. I don't have an 'above experiemnt'. So I don't know not you think you're talking about. I had thought we were discussing Sagnac > >> >>[snip as this is not sagnac] > > Why snip your own experiment ? I didn't propose any. >>> My model is not like this. The frequency depends on speed in the moving >>> frame >> >>Frequency as detected where? > > At the ultimate detection point for that ray element. So now you're not talking about photons as moving intrinsic oscillators any more. I think the only oscillation here is your position .. you keep changing it all the time.
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 07:22
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:4a6sa5p4dis1dfqi7kujqnqer6ssoac9ki(a)4ax.com... > 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? I know what happen. but as your model keeps changing, its hard to know. Assuming we're talking about light as a wave, then the frequency increases. SR says the speed is constant and the wavelength decreaes. A ballistic theory says the speed increases and the wavelength is constant. > If the sagnac source moves towards its ultimate detection point, which is > stationary in the inertial frame, You mean the one that is irrelevant to the Sagnac effect. > what happens to its frequency, To which frequency? > when measured > at that STATIONARY point. It is irrelevant to Saganc, as the detector is MOVING. [snip] >>> 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. Yes they are .. you've no shown how they could be otherwise >>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. It doesn't as your analysis is wrong. As has been pointed out many many times. Your flawed analysis is no threat to establish physics. It is totally irrelevant to it. > That must annoy you terribly... No. Your ignorance does though. And your continued attempt to mislead others. |