The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 20:20 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:1uata51182qs8578e4jtbtlfl3p956roh9(a)4ax.com... > 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. Yet we measure shifts in both wavelength and frequency from moving sources > The path lengths are different therefore Yes > the rays are out of phase when they meet. Which you assert with no evidence or theory to support it. Path length doesn't affect phase unless it affects transit time .. what affects phase is the difference in arrival time from the source to the detector. End of story
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 20:26 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:29bta55pf1bil28kgmosffm8rqpm2cacpc(a)4ax.com... > 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. But once you've got those figures, that we all agree on (though different in ballistic and SR, hence the difference in results) you no longer need fixed the points in the inertial frame. > I think it's time you read a little more about this. I think its time you thought a little more > 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. It is most definitely not as you propose. it has constant speed relative to observer and its wavelength and frequency vary via a Doppler shift. Yet you still persist with a model for light that contradicts observation. And one that is immediately refuted by Sagnac. > 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. Light frequency seems well enough defined. > Let's just accept the BaTh 'wavelength' explanation. It works. No .. it doesn't. > The path lengths > are different Yes > therefore each path contains a different number of wavelengths Yes .. from the wavefront back toward the point in history where the waves were emitted > and the rays are out of phase when they reunite. No .. they aren't as they wavefronts of a moving ray are in sync. The same part of the wave, that left the source at the same time in opposite directions, is arriving at the detector at the same time. nothing happened along the way to change that. > End of story. End of story
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 21:29 Inertial wrote: > "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. Remember this is ralph you are talking to. He fabricated a degree to make himself seem educated and he lies a lot. He has no physics knowledge but loves to bluster. > >
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 20:30 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:jrcta5tub7a24b384eg28pbc68eqtkvob9(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:11:19 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>> and intensity is E = h(c+v)/L >> >>No .. that is the E for energy per photon. Not Intensity. Otherwise you >>would be saying that all EMR at a given frequency has the same intensity. > > The intensity of light is related to related to intrinsic photon > properties Observed .. ie energy > plus the number of photons involved. Yeup. So E = hf = h(c+v)/L is not a formula for intensity. Its for energy per photon. There is nothing there that relates to the number of photons (or photon density).
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 20:32
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:offta511lmcjmo5p347mqdos4u9oqd88nl(a)4ax.com... > 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! Yet you keep denying it and saying its not relevant > In a rotating sagnac, the path lengths are different. yes > Wavelength (whatever that > implies) is invariant in BaTh. yes > Therefore the rays are out of phse when they > reunite. wrong, as you measure wavelength from the leading edge (or wavefront) .. the part of the ray that left the source simultaneously and travelled for the same time in opposite directions. There is no way it could have gotten out of phase in that time. > End of STORY. end of story |