The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 07:25 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:756sa5ta4hnlslibmvak4hvg41un5mlmuc(a)4ax.com... > 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. I didn't say it was. And it isn't we can say that Doppler shift doesn't change the light wave itself, it is an effect on what a particular observer measures about the wave.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 16:46 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:25:53 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:756sa5ta4hnlslibmvak4hvg41un5mlmuc(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:10:06 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> 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. > >I didn't say it was. And it isn't we can say that Doppler shift doesn't >change the light wave itself, it is an effect on what a particular observer >measures about the wave. Your main problem is that you have preconceptions about the wave nature of light and its 'frequency'. In reality you have no model and are just raving. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 16:51 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:22:58 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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> >>>> 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. Wavelength is absolute and invariant. The path lengths are different therefore the rays are out of phase when they meet. End of story. >> 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. The detection point for any particular element is at rest in the nonrotating frame. SR relies on that too,... so are you now agreeing that Einstein was an idiot? >[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. Your flawed assumptions about the wave nature of light are the cause of your total confusion. >> That must annoy you terribly... > >No. Your ignorance does though. And your continued attempt to mislead >others. > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 18:00 Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:22:58 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >>"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> > > >>>>>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. > > > Wavelength is absolute and invariant. The path lengths are different therefore > the rays are out of phase when they meet. End of story. Wrong by experiment ralph. End of story. > > >>>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. > > > The detection point for any particular element is at rest in the nonrotating > frame. SR relies on that too,... so are you now agreeing that Einstein was an > idiot? > > >>[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. > > > Your flawed assumptions about the wave nature of light are the cause of your > total confusion. Yes, ralph, we know you are not in touch with reality. > > >>>That must annoy you terribly... >> >>No. Your ignorance does though. And your continued attempt to mislead >>others. >> > > > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 17:19
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:39:57 -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: >> >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. They are vital for hte determination of the distance vt, a distance that is used identically in b oth SR and BaTh. I think it's time you read a little more about this. >> >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? Because it is the model that works. You are emulating inertial in trying to explain the behavior of light by using classical wave thepory....when it has been shown conclusively that light is not like that. >> >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. Let's forget about oscillations and frequencies. They are totally undefined and you two certainly haven't a clue as to what they might imply. Let's just accept the BaTh 'wavelength' explanation. It works. The path lengths are different therefore each path contains a different number of wavelengths and the rays are out of phase when they reunite. End of story. >> >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. that's the other demo. THe stationary wave is put there purely so you can see the phase difference. >> >> >> >> 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. At constant rotation speed, the fringes do not move. During any speed change, they move to a new displacement. >> >> >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 there. >That would be interesting. I think so ...but that should be reversed at the detector, where there is a similar reflection. It would be even more interesting if the wave phasing reversed direction at the reflection. For example, have you ever played squash? If you put topspin on a ball, it comes back to you with backspin on it, after bouncing off the front wall. I have often wondered if this is another complication in sagnac. .. >> > >> >> >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? Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |