The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 06:00 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:52:23 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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 Frame jumping again, I see. Well you should also 'frame jump' the frequencies. 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. > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 16 Sep 2009 06:33 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:6uc1b594dhcam08qi5sibgjg8g9un6hl51(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:40:26 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>> >> 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 > > I discussed those two possibilities with Paul several years ago....the > 'frozen > Norwegian snake' model or the 'warm wriggling Australian' one. > > I don't really think You should just leave it at that
From: Inertial on 16 Sep 2009 06:34 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:tmd1b5115q54qoao6uj2s3duv8ffa4qd13(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:52:23 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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 > > Frame jumping again, I see. Just stating facts .. you know .. the things you ignore. > Well you should also 'frame jump' the frequencies. > of phase. 'Frame jumping' cannot change phase .. either things are in phase or not. Frame of reference for looking at it makes no difference
From: Jonah Thomas on 16 Sep 2009 07:43 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> 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 > > I discussed those two possibilities with Paul several years ago....the > 'frozen Norwegian snake' model or the 'warm wriggling Australian' one. > > I don't really think light behaves like either although my 'rayphases' > demo uses that principle. Oh. > >> >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. > > You are regarding the photon as a simple oscillator. You cannot do > this. Well, it has to oscillate. It has to turn. How do you do it? > >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. > > No, they travel for the same time with different speeds and over > diffrent distances . You need a model that conforms to that. But you want them to be out of phase when they arrive. [sigh] I thought you said that the number of turns depended only on the distance. If that's so then the phase depends only on distance, although for interference it matters when things arrive. > >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. > > Yes. We haven't yet found it. Oh.
From: Sue... on 16 Sep 2009 08:12
On Sep 16, 7:43 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > > >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> 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 > > > I discussed those two possibilities with Paul several years ago....the > > 'frozen Norwegian snake' model or the 'warm wriggling Australian' one. > > > I don't really think light behaves like either although my 'rayphases' > > demo uses that principle. > > Oh. > > > > > >> >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. > > > You are regarding the photon as a simple oscillator. You cannot do > > this. > > Well, it has to oscillate. It has to turn. How do you do it? The ~oscillator~ is virtual along the path. <<The phase of the contribution of each path was proportional to the length of the path. Now, we ordinarily think of particles (such as photons) as traveling in straight lines from A to B, but Feynmans concept was that, in a sense, a particle follows all possible paths, and it just so happens that the lengths of nearly straight paths are not very sensitive to slight variations of the path, so they all have nearly identical lengths, meaning they have nearly the same phase, so their amplitudes add up. On the other hand, the lengths of the more convoluted paths are more sensitive to slight variations in the paths, so they have differing phases and tend to cancel out. >> http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath320/kmath320.htm Sue... > > > >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. > > > No, they travel for the same time with different speeds and over > > diffrent distances . You need a model that conforms to that. > > But you want them to be out of phase when they arrive. > > [sigh] I thought you said that the number of turns depended only on the > distance. If that's so then the phase depends only on distance, although > for interference it matters when things arrive. > > > > > >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. > > > Yes. We haven't yet found it. > > Oh. |