The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 17:57 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:43:55 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:ng9ta5p2djmi3dqi5t4s0gso1vvpep0kb3(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:47:56 +0100, "Androcles" >>>"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson >>> news:pllli3puamdqd70qnenjoonfsbjtv1ibmj(a)4ax.com >> >> Just look at the mess you made of your own rotating frame portrayal of >> Sagnac... > >Stick with your time compression, Wilson. It's the only thing you have to >offer. >Nobody is taken in by your drunken shouting. No wonder the concorde went down. It was spinning at c/100 rps according to Androcles gyro. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 18:04 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:00:39 -0800, doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: There are enough idiots here without you. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 18:18 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:16:00 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:sq6sa5lbp7f54ch4k9858n26lr02d1drfk(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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. Brilliant! >>>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. You haev preconceptions about he nature of light basd on classical wave theory. It is wrong. >> It doesn't behave like >> that. > >I know that .. but you keep saying that's what it is. In a rotating sagnac, the path lengths are different. Wavelength (whatever that implies) is invariant in BaTh. Therefore the rays are out of phse when they reunite. End of STORY. >>>>>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. They are they same....except Einstein magically made every observer at rest wrt the aether. >But they do both get Sagnac correct. LET would do if an aether existed...SR violates its own postulate. >>>> 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 You haven't a clue what you have. >>>[snip as this is not sagnac] >> >> Why snip your own experiment ? > >I didn't propose any. you did. >>>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. I don't want to discuss light in terms of 'frequency' because there is no proper definition of it. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 18:53 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: > > >> >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. I don't understand. > 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. What should be used instead? I'm willing to throw away all the classical wave stuff if you have something else that works. But what is it? It looks to me like you're using stationary waves. > >> >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. If we throw out classical interpretations of wave, frequency, and wavelength, what do you replace them with? I'm still real unclear on the details here. It might work for you to throw out all the old concepts and replace them with new concepts where things work out right, but I need the concepts. > >> >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. No, this one too. You drew waves that get extended around a circle. At any one spot the wave never changes after it gets drawn. Those waves are frozen once they are drawn. But traditionally the wavefront itself moves sideways. Think of an ocean wave, rolling in toward the beach. If each wave just stayed exactly where it was but new waves started rising in front of the old ones, with each crest and trough staying completely still after they were formed, wouldn't it look uncanny? This kind of wave will probably not create the kind of electromagnetism that got people to think light was an EM wave in the first place. You need the fields in one place to change or nothing happens. I think you probably will want those wavecrests to travel sideways at c, not remain static. But your own theory might be different. > >> >> >> >> 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. That's true. But then your task is to explain why they get a phase change at the very beginning. > >> >> >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. You could bounce it an even number of times before the detector. > 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.. Yes, that's interesting, though a side topic for Sagnac. So here's the simple model, something that's simpler than Sagnac, I hope simple enough we can easily get a common understanding. You start with two stationary emitters that -- somehow -- emit light at different speeds. (They could be mirrors reflecting moving sources, say.) One of them emits light at 0.9c, the other emits light at 1.1c. They are emitting light in parallel. They have the same frequency at the source, they each begin ten waves during every second, in phase. There are two detectors lined up side by side. The distance from the emitters to the detectors is 0.9 distance units for the emitter whose light travels at 0.9, and is 1.1 units for othe emitter whose light travels at 1.1. I say that the light is "in phase" in a sense when it leaves the emitters -- they both have wave crests at the same times and wave troughs at the same times etc. But they're in two different places and a relativist might say that they can't be in phase if they aren't at the same place and time. I say that the light is "in phase" at the moment it reaches the detectors. But it will not stay in phase for much time or distance. After all they have different wavelengths. Do you agree, in the case where nothing moves but the light which starts out in phase but which travels at different speeds with no reflection?
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 20:17
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:2rata51qq4f3k5vocakneqeeaud8ugbda3(a)4ax.com... > 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. Doppler shift cannot change the light itself, as it is observer dependant. Multiple observers of the same light will record different frequencies. The wave itself doesn't (and can't) change to make that happen, it is an aretfact of the relative movement of the observer to the wave while measuring it. |