The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 06:50 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:f6qua512p36d9ko06hudhvqaccin9b935d(a)4ax.com... > 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 Why do you post this nonsense? Who is it you are trying to fool .. yourself?
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 15 Sep 2009 06:50 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:29:36 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >I don't understand. > >Well, maybe I do. You set it up that way so that it would give the >answer you wanted. A strategy worthy of Einstein! > >> >> 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 was excited about this at first. Traditionally people thought of >frequency and wavelength and wavespeed in terms of concentric circles >from a stationary source. Just like sound. > >A moving source would give you a compression, you'd get eccentric >circles instead. > >But you could use that eccentricity to tell who was moving. If there >aren't preferred frames then everybody ought to calculate those things >as concentric circles. And that's one of the things SR gives you. It doesn't. It simply says it does by postulate. >I found it exciting that emission theories give you that same result >without having to fudge the lengths or times, or, well, anything. > >But you and Androcles both steadfastly maintain that the concentric >circles are just some sort of useless illusion, and the reality is >something unrelated. At precisely the time that you'd think the light >was coming from straight overhead from a star that's moving sideways, >you have to instead point your telescope off at an angle. So now I'm not >sure what to think. That's called aberration. First Stellar aberration and now mental aberration. (that's a joke) >> >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. > >I don't see that. The PE effect is perfectly compatible with light as >waves, isn't it? NONONONONONONONONO! That's the problem. Relativity is incompatible with quantium theory yet idiots like inetial and demented dougie still try to defend the nonsense. >> >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. > >It isn't at all clear to me, but I'm working on it. > >> >> 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. > >It seems to me that you don't have an alternative model, you have a >proposal for an alternative model. Well I have the basis of a model. I don't spend all day thinking about it. I don't care how many more UNI students are brainwashed by the physics establishment. The truth will eventually come out. >That's OK, but when you use the words people use for the traditional >model people get confused and apply the concepts they have attached to >those words and they wind up saying you're crazy, confused, lying, etc. >It might be good to come up with entirely new words. I don't take any notice of what those morons say. it only makes me feel more superior. >Gregory Bateson claimed that he did well to start out with short >anglo-saxon words when he was starting out and a bit vague about his >concepts, and then he'd replace them with long latin-greek words after >it was all firmed up. > >So I want to suggest that you talk about maybe "turns". A given kind of >light does x turns per meter, and by stating it that way we tend to >imply that color depends on terms/meter and not turns/second. Lightspeed >can vary with the source, and turns/second varies then but turns/meter >does not. Am I right so far about what you're saying? You're getting close. My definition of wavelength is something like "In the source frame, a photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its intrinsic oscillation (whatever that may be)". That distance is an absolute and invariant spatial interval....just like the distance between the ends of a rigid rod.. >> >> 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. > >So, you measure the pathlength and that gives you the number of turns. >OK. Yep. >> 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. > >Mmmm. You change the rotational speed. The number of turns from the >emitter to the detector is unchanged. No it isn't. The distance 'vt' changes. That's the distance between the start and detection points in the inertial frame....according to both SR and BaTh. You still haven't understood that mathpages diagram. >What about the time it takes to >get from the emitter to the receiver? The time is the distance divided >by the speed. So when it isn't moving the time is d/c. When it's moving >at v then the time is > >t=(d+vt)/(c+v) In the inertial frame 2piR + vt = (c+v)t .........(one ray) Or 2piR - vt = (c-v)t......(other ray) So t = 2piR /c >The distance goes up by the amount the detector turns, and speed goes up >by the amount the detector turns. > >t-vt/(c+v) = d/(c+v) >t(c+v) -vt = d >ct = d >t = d/c > >The time it takes to get to the detector is independent of v. It takes >the same time no matter how fast it spins. That's correct. THat is easily derived if you use the rotating frame. However it isn't as simple as it appears. >Why would the number of turns it takes to get to the detector be >different when the number of turns in that distance is constant and the >time it takes to arrive is constant? That's the big question...and when you answer it, you'll be awarded a Nobel prize. Don't forget to mention my name will you. >It looks to me like when we assume that the speed of the light in the >two directions is c+v and c-v and that speed stays constant at c+v and >at c-v the whole distance, we should get no interference. But when the >speed of light is the vector sum of cD+vV where V is a unit vector in >the direction of the source and v is the speed of the source, and D is >the direction that will give us a vector sum in the direction we're >interested in, then we get precisely the amount of interference we'd >expect by classical or by SR methods, the amount that is experimentally >observed. Yes, the classical explanation is indeed very attractive...except that an aether does not exist and there is no obvious explanation as to why the rays should move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. >> >> 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. > >I'm not sure I understood that. Was it what I said? vV+cD? That change >in velocity would do it. The wave goes backwards at a reflection but the front still moves forwards. That can happen. >> >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. > >?? What is it that you think would vary by model in this simple example? I'll think about it. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 15 Sep 2009 06:50 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:08:00 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. Dougie needs you..... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 15 Sep 2009 07:16 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. Thank you! That was exactly what I needed. Unless I find reason to think otherwise, I will proceed as if wavelength alone determines diffraction independent of speed or frequency. So light at a given wavelength should diffract the same completely independent of the light's speed, and separate lightbeams that have different speeds should interfere with each other identically completely independent of their speeds.
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 07:21
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090915071616.7eab5c0c.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> 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. > > Thank you! That was exactly what I needed. > > Unless I find reason to think otherwise, I will proceed as if wavelength > alone determines diffraction independent of speed or frequency. That's correct > So light at a given wavelength should diffract the same completely > independent of the light's speed, Yes .. as per the various links I've given you > and separate lightbeams that have > different speeds should interfere with each other identically completely > independent of their speeds. Are their wavelengths are the same? |