The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 15 Sep 2009 23:21 Inertial wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090915214026.1e326db4.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > >> hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> >>> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >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. >> >> >> OK, this might not apply to your model, but I have pictures that show >> what the problem is if it does apply. >> >> http://yfrog.com/0xwavecg >> http://yfrog.com/10wavedg >> >>> >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.. >> >> >> So, with the model that Inertial and I were using, the photon moves >> forward but doesn't turn. The front of the wave is always the front of >> the wave, and it is in phase with any other front-of-waves it happens to >> meet up with. For it to get out of phase it has to match up with >> something that is not the front of a wave. > > > Yeup > >> But with your model, the front of the wave changes phase as it travels. >> it isn't enough for it to meet another front-of-wave, they have to have >> both traveled the same distance. > > > That's what I've been saying .. something must be happening in Henry's > model to make the phase of the two waves change different over the > course of transit, even though they travel for the same time, and are > emitted from the source with the same speed and and frequency .. its the > same ray been split in two. > > Of course, when phase changes at the leading edge like that, what you > have is a moving intrinsic oscillator, and so wavelength varies and > frequency is fixed, and you still end up with them in phase. > >> I found that concept alien enough that I simply did not understand what >> you were saying. >> It just did not register. Now the question is whether >> that approach can fit together with the other things we think we know, >> and what has to be changed to fit your model. >> >> I would like it better if we had a model for travel that did not fit >> either of my two pictures. In the one case the leading edge does not >> turn and the Sagnac experiment does not get out of phase. In the other >> case the leading edge turns but another particle following in the >> footsteps of the first, or later wraps of the same photon, would give a >> stationary charge at each spot they traversed until they were gone. >> >> There ought to be a third way. > > > Or Henry is simply wrong. That's been the concensus for the last few > years. In fact, if ralph (henry) were right it would be the first time in all his posts. He is either dead wrong or lying. > >
From: Jonah Thomas on 15 Sep 2009 22:48 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > OK, this might not apply to your model, but I have pictures that > > show what the problem is if it does apply. > > > > http://yfrog.com/0xwavecg > > http://yfrog.com/10wavedg > > > >> >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.. > > > > So, with the model that Inertial and I were using, the photon moves > > forward but doesn't turn. The front of the wave is always the front > > of the wave, and it is in phase with any other front-of-waves it > > happens to meet up with. For it to get out of phase it has to match > > up with something that is not the front of a wave. > > Yeup > > > But with your model, the front of the wave changes phase as it > > travels. it isn't enough for it to meet another front-of-wave, they > > have to have both traveled the same distance. > > That's what I've been saying .. something must be happening in Henry's > model to make the phase of the two waves change different over the > course of transit, even though they travel for the same time, and are > emitted from the source with the same speed and and frequency .. its > the same ray been split in two. Well, in his model they don't have the same speed. They are in phase when they are emitted, but their frequency after they are emitted doesn't have to be the same and isn't when the speed is different. He has the "wavelength", the distance it takes for the leading edge to do a complete turn, be constant independent of speed. So if frequency has meaning for him it would absorb all the speed change. I think of wavelength as the distance between wave crests, and that needn't have anything to do with the distance it takes for the leading edge to turn. Wilson has said that in his model the photon has a definite length, and he appears to picture it like a coil of wire that turns a definite number of times, it is incompressible and the length is completely stable. But if there was value in a model where the photon can be stretched or compressed independent of the fixed distance it takes for the leading edge to turn, that model is available. > Of course, when phase changes at the leading edge like that, what you > have is a moving intrinsic oscillator, and so wavelength varies and > frequency is fixed, and you still end up with them in phase. He's doing something that does not fit your model. I don't know whether it works, but it isn't what you say. > > I found that concept alien enough that I simply did not understand > > what you were saying. > > It just did not register. Now the question is whether > > that approach can fit together with the other things we think we > > know, and what has to be changed to fit your model. > > > > I would like it better if we had a model for travel that did not fit > > either of my two pictures. In the one case the leading edge does not > > turn and the Sagnac experiment does not get out of phase. In the > > other case the leading edge turns but another particle following in > > the footsteps of the first, or later wraps of the same photon, would > > give a stationary charge at each spot they traversed until they were > > gone. > > > > There ought to be a third way. > > Or Henry is simply wrong. That's been the concensus for the last few > years. He might easily be wrong. But physics has not advanced by depending on the consensus of people who don't understand what they're deciding about.
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 22:52 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090915224823.1aaa5828.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > OK, this might not apply to your model, but I have pictures that >> > show what the problem is if it does apply. >> > >> > http://yfrog.com/0xwavecg >> > http://yfrog.com/10wavedg >> > >> >> >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.. >> > >> > So, with the model that Inertial and I were using, the photon moves >> > forward but doesn't turn. The front of the wave is always the front >> > of the wave, and it is in phase with any other front-of-waves it >> > happens to meet up with. For it to get out of phase it has to match >> > up with something that is not the front of a wave. >> >> Yeup >> >> > But with your model, the front of the wave changes phase as it >> > travels. it isn't enough for it to meet another front-of-wave, they >> > have to have both traveled the same distance. >> >> That's what I've been saying .. something must be happening in Henry's >> model to make the phase of the two waves change different over the >> course of transit, even though they travel for the same time, and are >> emitted from the source with the same speed and and frequency .. its >> the same ray been split in two. > > Well, in his model they don't have the same speed. Yes they do, as emitted from the moving source. its only according to a some differently moving observer that the speeds are different > They are in phase > when they are emitted, Yes > but their frequency after they are emitted > doesn't have to be the same Nothing changes it > and isn't when the speed is different. It's all an artefact of who is measuring it .. there is no change in the wave itself. its not the case that after emissions one wave speeds up and the other slows down. It's just a different measurement due to the movement of the observer relative to the source (and the rays). There is no change to the rays making their frequency or wavelength different (depending on whether the ray is a wave or a moving oscillator), its just how they are measured by a relatively moving observer. > He > has the "wavelength", the distance it takes for the leading edge to do a > complete turn, be constant independent of speed. Which is not physically possible. The speed is different depending on the relative speed of whoever observes it. But the number of turns taken isn't ... all inertial observers see the same number of turns happening in the same time (we are talking about a non-relativistic framework here), but a different speed, so a different wavelength. Henry's notion is just totally unphysical. > So if frequency has > meaning for him it would absorb all the speed change. > I think of wavelength as the distance between wave crests, and that > needn't have anything to do with the distance it takes for the leading > edge to turn. What wave crests are there? Its a turning object. If you mean the distance it travels to make one turn, then that depends on the speed. > Wilson has said that in his model the photon has a > definite length, and he appears to picture it like a coil of wire that > turns a definite number of times, it is incompressible and the length is > completely stable. So what is its wavelength and what is its frequency and what is its phase. These all need to be defined or we can't talk about what happens in Sagnac at the detector. > But if there was value in a model where the photon > can be stretched or compressed independent of the fixed distance it > takes for the leading edge to turn, that model is available. > >> Of course, when phase changes at the leading edge like that, what you >> have is a moving intrinsic oscillator, and so wavelength varies and >> frequency is fixed, and you still end up with them in phase. > > He's doing something that does not fit your model. I don't know whether > it works, but it isn't what you say. Then what is it? Is it a wave, is it a moving oscillator (eg a spinning object) ? >> > I found that concept alien enough that I simply did not understand >> > what you were saying. >> > It just did not register. Now the question is whether >> > that approach can fit together with the other things we think we >> > know, and what has to be changed to fit your model. >> > >> > I would like it better if we had a model for travel that did not fit >> > either of my two pictures. In the one case the leading edge does not >> > turn and the Sagnac experiment does not get out of phase. In the >> > other case the leading edge turns but another particle following in >> > the footsteps of the first, or later wraps of the same photon, would >> > give a stationary charge at each spot they traversed until they were >> > gone. >> > >> > There ought to be a third way. >> >> Or Henry is simply wrong. That's been the concensus for the last few >> years. > > He might easily be wrong. But physics has not advanced by depending on > the consensus of people who don't understand what they're deciding > about. Indeed it doesn't .. but Henry has never presented a consistent non-contradictory model. And his ballistic analysis of Sagnac is just plain wrong. Those are facts, not opinions.
From: Inertial on 15 Sep 2009 23:04 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090915224823.1aaa5828.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > BTW: If henry's model (whatever it is) predicts phase shift in Sagnac, then it should predict phase shift here: Source (X) and two detectors (D1, D2), equidistant form the source, with two rays, with wavelength indicated by the < >. So over time we have: D1-----------X-----------D2 D1-------<---X--->-------D2 D1---<---<---X--->--->---D2 D<---<---<---X--->--->--->2 The rays will surely arrive at D1 and D2 at the same time and same speed and same frequency and in phase Now look at it in terms of a relatively moving observer 'o' (eg an observer moving past the device, or the observer is fixed and we put move the device ... same thing) D1-----------------------D2 ..............o............. D1-------<---X--->-------D2 .............o.............. D1---<---<---X--->--->---D2 ............o............... D<---<---<---X--->--->--->2 ...........o................ Look at this from the observer 'o' point of view D1-----------------------D2 ..............o............. ..D1-------<---X--->-------D2 ..............o.............. ...D1---<---<---X--->--->---D2 ..............o............... ....D<---<---<---X--->--->--->2 ..............o................ In the observers frame, the two rays are travelling different speeds for different path length but over the same time. The frequency of the rays is different according to the observer. The number of wavelengths in each path from 'o' to the detectors is different. So according to Henry's model, there should be a phase difference at the detectors. But this is exactly the same set up as at the start, where there is no phase difference, just seen from someone moving past it. Either there is a phase difference at the detectors, or there is not.
From: Jonah Thomas on 16 Sep 2009 01:16
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > >> > OK, this might not apply to your model, but I have pictures that > >> > show what the problem is if it does apply. > >> > > >> > http://yfrog.com/0xwavecg > >> > http://yfrog.com/10wavedg > >> > > >> >> >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.. > >> > > >> > So, with the model that Inertial and I were using, the photon > >moves> > forward but doesn't turn. The front of the wave is always > >the front> > of the wave, and it is in phase with any other > >front-of-waves it> > happens to meet up with. For it to get out of > >phase it has to match> > up with something that is not the front of a > >wave.> > >> Yeup > >> > >> > But with your model, the front of the wave changes phase as it > >> > travels. it isn't enough for it to meet another front-of-wave, > >they> > have to have both traveled the same distance. > >> > >> That's what I've been saying .. something must be happening in > >Henry's> model to make the phase of the two waves change different > >over the> course of transit, even though they travel for the same > >time, and are> emitted from the source with the same speed and and > >frequency .. its> the same ray been split in two. > > > > Well, in his model they don't have the same speed. > > Yes they do, as emitted from the moving source. its only according to > a some differently moving observer that the speeds are different This is a rotation so it isn't inertial frames. Henry supposes a form of emission theory where one side moves at c+v and one at c-v and they keep the speed on reflection, and this time it isn't just an observer effect. He postulates that both sides reach the detector at the same time, and the detector has moved so that d1 and d2 are in the ratio c+v:c-v. The distance from the short interval on the ring that a photon was emitted to the short interval on the ring where the light reaches the detector can be measured by anybody who doesn't suffer length contraction. If everybody agrees that the light reaches the detector from both sides at the same time, then there isn't a lot of room for observer effects here. The distances are different, the times are the same, so the speeds are different. > > They are in phase > > when they are emitted, > > Yes > > > but their frequency after they are emitted > > doesn't have to be the same > > Nothing changes it If "frequency" is the number of turns per unit time, and they travel different distances in a unit time, and the number of turns is fixed by distance, then they have different frequencies. > > and isn't when the speed is different. > > It's all an artefact of who is measuring it .. there is no change in > the wave itself. its not the case that after emissions one wave > speeds up and the other slows down. It's just a different measurement > due to the movement of the observer relative to the source (and the > rays). There is no change to the rays making their frequency or > wavelength different (depending on whether the ray is a wave or a > moving oscillator), its just how they are measured by a relatively > moving observer. If a sagnac device tells you that something is rotating, is that just due to a relatively moving observer? > > He > > has the "wavelength", the distance it takes for the leading edge to > > do a complete turn, be constant independent of speed. > > Which is not physically possible. The speed is different depending on > the relative speed of whoever observes it. But the number of turns > taken isn't .. all inertial observers see the same number of turns > happening in the same time (we are talking about a non-relativistic > framework here), but a different speed, so a different wavelength. He postulates the distance it takes to do a complete turn to be constant for a given sort of light, independent of speed. That distance may not be what you mean by wavelength. What you mean by wavelength might not be constant. If the speed is different between the two sides, then all nonrelativistic observers who count the number of turns will count the same numbers. But the two sides will have different numbers of turns in the same length of time because of the different speeds. > Henry's notion is just totally unphysical. It may well be. I'm not sure I understand what he's talking about. But I understand this much, and so far it looks like a possible way for things to go. I don't understand interference well enough yet, at a minimum I'll have to sleep on it. But traditional interference looks like it depends only on wavelength independent of speed and frequency. If you count the distance traveled in wavelengths, the distance will vary smoothly from one end of a slit to the other. If the sides of the slit cancel, the center is the part that's least likely to spread out anyway.... I started to say more but it might not make sense to me in the morning. So better not to write it until morning at the earliest. > > So if frequency has > > meaning for him it would absorb all the speed change. > > > I think of wavelength as the distance between wave crests, and that > > needn't have anything to do with the distance it takes for the > > leading edge to turn. > > What wave crests are there? Its a turning object. If you mean the > distance it travels to make one turn, then that depends on the speed. I repeat, he postulates a system where the distance required to make one turn is independent of speed. > > Wilson has said that in his model the photon has a > > definite length, and he appears to picture it like a coil of wire > > that turns a definite number of times, it is incompressible and the > > length is completely stable. > > So what is its wavelength and what is its frequency and what is its > phase. These all need to be defined or we can't talk about what > happens in Sagnac at the detector. He doesn't need to define all that, but he does need to define how interference happens in his system. That might involve wavelength and frequency and phase, or he might have different concepts that work. > > But if there was value in a model where the photon > > can be stretched or compressed independent of the fixed distance it > > takes for the leading edge to turn, that model is available. > > > >> Of course, when phase changes at the leading edge like that, what > >you> have is a moving intrinsic oscillator, and so wavelength varies > >and> frequency is fixed, and you still end up with them in phase. > > > > He's doing something that does not fit your model. I don't know > > whether it works, but it isn't what you say. > > Then what is it? Is it a wave, is it a moving oscillator (eg a > spinning object) ? He talks like it's a spinning object but I haven't yet seen how that's important. Just to imagine it, I try to imagine a series of spinning objects. Each of them can spin, and each next one can be a little out of phase with the previous one. The spin that each one has does not have to match up with the change in spin for successive particles. (Though Maxwell's equations might say they do have to match up in some particular way.) > >> > I found that concept alien enough that I simply did not > >understand> > what you were saying. > >> > It just did not register. Now the question is whether > >> > that approach can fit together with the other things we think we > >> > know, and what has to be changed to fit your model. > >> > > >> > I would like it better if we had a model for travel that did not > >fit> > either of my two pictures. In the one case the leading edge > >does not> > turn and the Sagnac experiment does not get out of phase. > >In the> > other case the leading edge turns but another particle > >following in> > the footsteps of the first, or later wraps of the > >same photon, would> > give a stationary charge at each spot they > >traversed until they were> > gone. > >> > > >> > There ought to be a third way. > >> > >> Or Henry is simply wrong. That's been the concensus for the last > >few> years. > > > > He might easily be wrong. But physics has not advanced by depending > > on the consensus of people who don't understand what they're > > deciding about. > > Indeed it doesn't .. but Henry has never presented a consistent > non-contradictory model. And his ballistic analysis of Sagnac is just > plain wrong. Those are facts, not opinions. Are you sure you understand his model? I'm sure I don't fully understand it, and I've been giving it the most sympathetic hearing I could manage. Much harder to understand an idea if you don't give it a sympathetic hearing. (Of course, even after you do it can still be plain wrong.) |