The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 01:28 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090915011301.6b224b99.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Wavelengths are measured with a diffraction grating which is only >> >> sensitive to wavelength. >> > >> > How did you find out that diffraction gratings are only sensitive to >> > wavelength? I've been looking for information on that and have not >> > found anything yet. >> >> Wikipeida is a good starting point >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating > > This one is utterly worthless, they do nothing to distinguish effects of > wavelength from those of frequency. Did you not read the theory of operation? The == When a plane wave of wavelength λ is incident normally on the grating, each slit in the grating acts as a point source propagating in all directions. The light in a particular direction, θ, is made up of the interfering components from each slit. Generally, the phases of the waves from different slits will vary from one another, and will cancel one another out partially or wholly. However, when the path difference between the light from adjacent slits is equal to the wavelength, λ, the waves will all be in phase. This occurs at angles θm which satisfy the relationship dsinθm/λ=|m| where d is the separation of the slits and m is an integer. Thus, the diffracted light will have maxima at angles θm given by dsinθm=mλ == It dependant on the distance between waves and the distance between grating slits The frequency doesn't matter >> and here >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/grating.html > > Ditto. > >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/gratcal.html > > Likewise. > > I haven't seen any analysis at all separating the effects of wavelength > from frequency at different lightspeeds. There's no discussion why it's > wavelength that matters instead of frequency. Yes there is > Of course, at constant > lightspeed one gives you the other and it isn't really possible to > separate them. Yes .. you can Consider the interference in a double slit experiment http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/physics_a2/Module_4/Topic_6/derivation_of_young.htm Lambda = ws/D where Lambda = wavelength, w = fringe spacing, s = slit spacing, D = distance from slit to screen. Nothing there at all related t frequency and speed (except as much as they determine wavelength) Its all about wavelengths and path lengths.
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 01:44 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:0038a9d8$0$2958$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090915011301.6b224b99.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Wavelengths are measured with a diffraction grating which is only >>> >> sensitive to wavelength. >>> > >>> > How did you find out that diffraction gratings are only sensitive to >>> > wavelength? I've been looking for information on that and have not >>> > found anything yet. >>> >>> Wikipeida is a good starting point >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating >> >> This one is utterly worthless, they do nothing to distinguish effects of >> wavelength from those of frequency. Also see http://mrmacphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/APB+Ch.+14+Waves+&+Sound.ppt Look at slide 85 ~ 88 on Diffraction. Also the section on Superposition. Although the whole thing is useful to read as a refresher on waves (esp after getting your mind warped by Henry :)). Some nice little animations in it too.
From: Jerry on 15 Sep 2009 01:52 On Sep 15, 12:13 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I haven't seen any analysis at all separating the effects of wavelength > from frequency at different lightspeeds. There's no discussion why it's > wavelength that matters instead of frequency. Of course, at constant > lightspeed one gives you the other and it isn't really possible to > separate them. A standard university physics lab experiment: A grating made of metallic rods spaced 20 cm apart will diffract sound in the kHz range at exactly the same angle as microwaves in the GHz range of the same wavelength. Wavelength, not frequency, determines the diffraction angle. Whether it be in acoustics design of a major auditorium, or the design of breakwaters to dissipate the energy of massive ocean waves, or in seismic tomography mapping the interior of the Earth, the same formulas hold relating diffracted angle with wavelength, despite the many orders-of-magnitude difference in frequency between water waves, sound waves, seismic waves, or EM waves. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 15 Sep 2009 06:12 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:21:58 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> I think he means wrong by experiment that wavelength is invariant. >> >> Experiment shows wavelength and frequency vary in accord with >> >> relativistic Doppler. >> > >> > That sounds interesting. Do you have a link? >> >> see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm > >"Ironically, although the results of their experiment brilliantly >confirmed Einstein?s prediction based on the special theory of >relativity, Ives and Stillwell were not advocates of relativity, and in >fact gave a completely different theoretical model to account for their >experimental results and the deviation from the classical prediction" > >This would be a good thing to try out for emission theory since it's >forward and back with none of the sideways motion that Androcles and I >disagree on. They got about half the difference between forward and >backward doppler as classical results would expect. > >> see >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Experimental_verification > >This claims experimental evidence for a doppler effect at 90 degrees. >But I might likely have that for an emission theory. If so, it is not >experimental verification for relativistic doppler unless they turn out >quantitatively different. But Androcles appears to argue that emission >theory does not give any doppler effect at 90 degrees, so if he's right >that would be evidence that emission theories are wrong and relativity >is right. > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation >> >> > * Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255. McGowan >et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251. > > They compared the frequency of two lasers, one locked to fast-beam >neon and one locked to the same transition in thermal neon. Kaivola >found agreement with SR's Doppler formula is to within 4?10?5; McGowan >within 2.3?10?6. > * Hay et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960), pg 165. > > A M?ssbauer absorber on a rotor. > * Kuendig, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 6 (1963), pg 2371. > > A M?ssbauer absorber on a rotor was used to verify the transverse >Doppler effect of SR to 1.1%. > * Olin et al., Phys. Rev. D8 no. 6 (1973), pg 1633. > > A nuclear measurement at 0.05 c, in very good agreement with the >prediction of SR. > * Mandelberg and Witten, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. 52, pg 529 (1962). > > Measured the exponent of the quadratic Doppler shift to be >0.498?0.025, in agreement with SR's value of ?. > >This looks promising. Some indirect measurements come out very very >close, and some more direct ones within 1% or so. A competitive emission >theory ideally would get similar results. GR says light speed is always c and then distorts space to make that true. BaTh says light accelerates in gravity wells like anything else and maintains the Euclidean constancy of space. Just as Earth centrism was able to correctly explain certain astronomological phenomena, so is GR capable of getting the occasional correct answer. For instance, the claimed GR correction for GPS clocks just happens to be exactly the same as the fractional accleration of light due to gravity from the height of the GPS orbit. Coincidence, eh? Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 15 Sep 2009 06:15
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 15, 12:13�am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I haven't seen any analysis at all separating the effects of wavelength >> from frequency at different lightspeeds. There's no discussion why it's >> wavelength that matters instead of frequency. Of course, at constant >> lightspeed one gives you the other and it isn't really possible to >> separate them. > >A standard university physics lab experiment: >A grating made of metallic rods spaced 20 cm apart will diffract >sound in the kHz range at exactly the same angle as microwaves >in the GHz range of the same wavelength. Wavelength, not >frequency, determines the diffraction angle. > >Whether it be in acoustics design of a major auditorium, or the >design of breakwaters to dissipate the energy of massive ocean >waves, or in seismic tomography mapping the interior of the >Earth, the same formulas hold relating diffracted angle with >wavelength, despite the many orders-of-magnitude difference in >frequency between water waves, sound waves, seismic waves, or >EM waves. > >Jerry Oh dear, poor old Jerry still believes that light behaves like sound in air. Diffraction gratings are sensitive to wavecrest arrival frequency See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |