From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 23:50 Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:17:48 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> 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: > > >>>>>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. > > > What 'wave'? > Light is particulate. Ralph likes to demonstrate his ignorance of science. > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 22:51 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:53:03 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >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? That's the big question. One that says 'wavelength' is absolute and invariant. All you need to do is define what determies this thing we are calling wavelength. >I'm willing to throw away all the classical >wave stuff if you have something else that works. It was thrown away when the PE effect was discovered....... ironically by Einstein himself. >But what is it? It >looks to me like you're using stationary waves. Go back to the rope model. No matter how fast the rope is moved around the cylinder and the same number of twists exists between any two points on the cylinder. The two directions of the rope represent the numbers of wavelengths in each path. A photon emitted at one point and moving inside the hollow torus moves much much faster than the rope and experiences virtually the same number of cycles as there are twists. The distance between the two points varies with rope (ring gyro) rotational speed. This is now a pretty clear model. >> 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. Well work on it....I am. >> >> >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. OK. You have to find a model that requires the emitted light to experience the same number of cycles per path as there are absolute wavelengths. >But traditionally the wavefront itself moves sideways. Don't think of it as a wavefront. >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. My theory works. It says that 'wavelength' (whatever that is) remains constant and 'frequency' (whatever THAT is) is doppler shifted in the nonrotating frame. Form that, we have to speculate on models that might fit. >> >> 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. During any CHANGE in rotational speed, a change also occurs in the number of wavelengths in each path. They flow out of one and into the other. >> >> >> 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. That's what happens. >> 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. Well no it isn't. The point is, if the wave phase velocity changes direction at each mirror, whilst its wave velocity continues on, the phase shift at the end could explain the whole effect. >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? No it depends on the model. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 22:52 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:28 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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). I didn't say there was. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 23:59 Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:53:03 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> >>>Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>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? > > > That's the big question. One that says 'wavelength' is absolute and invariant. Which, of course would be the wrong model. > All you need to do is define what determies this thing we are calling > wavelength. Since you have no clue as to what this means, you are not the one to try. > > >>I'm willing to throw away all the classical >>wave stuff if you have something else that works. > > > It was thrown away when the PE effect was discovered....... ironically by > Einstein himself. Ralph lies a lot or is just stupid. > > >>But what is it? It >>looks to me like you're using stationary waves. > > > Go back to the rope model. No matter how fast the rope is moved around the > cylinder and the same number of twists exists between any two points on the > cylinder. The two directions of the rope represent the numbers of wavelengths > in each path. > A photon emitted at one point and moving inside the hollow torus moves much > much faster than the rope and experiences virtually the same number of cycles > as there are twists. > The distance between the two points varies with rope (ring gyro) rotational > speed. > > This is now a pretty clear model. Pretty clearly wrong. You really have totally lost it in your delusions. > > >>>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. > > > Well work on it....I am. Yes, you are trying to ignore reality. > > >>>>>>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. > > > OK. You have to find a model that requires the emitted light to experience the > same number of cycles per path as there are absolute wavelengths. > Since there are no absolute wavelengths, this would be as stupid as the rest of your nonsense. > >>But traditionally the wavefront itself moves sideways. > > > Don't think of it as a wavefront. > > >>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. > > > My theory works. It says that 'wavelength' (whatever that is) remains constant > and 'frequency' (whatever THAT is) is doppler shifted in the nonrotating frame. No, your "theory" is laughably wrong. And we do get a good laugh at it > > Form that, we have to speculate on models that might fit. > Try current physics. That works well. > > >>>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. > > > During any CHANGE in rotational speed, a change also occurs in the number of > wavelengths in each path. They flow out of one and into the other. > More nonsense, ralph. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > That's what happens. > > >>>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. > > > Well no it isn't. The point is, if the wave phase velocity changes direction at > each mirror, whilst its wave velocity continues on, the phase shift at the end > could explain the whole effect. How do you come up with this nonsense? > > >>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? > > > No it depends on the model. > > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 23:08
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:8a0ua598nfl6lsdn7v79q2p94bibhdpcou(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:28 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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). > > I didn't say there was. More lies from Henry. You see, that's the problem when you lie, your have to keep making more lies to cover up the first one. |