The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 16 Sep 2009 08:19 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:97134f76-d3cb-4847-92b8-ecc9396ca15e(a)o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > 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 Feynman�s 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 You're just confusing the issue, Sue, with areas beyond what Jonah is trying to understand atm.
From: Jonah Thomas on 16 Sep 2009 10:40 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > > > >> >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. > > > >Sure, but it gives a model that does result in the waves moving in > >concentric circles independent of frame, and so far it's largely > >compatible with experimental evidence. What more would you want? > >Well, it would be nice if it made sense. But apart from that.... > > Wake up. There is NO experimental evidence. Oops. I didn't intend to argue about relativity. > >> >> 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 apart from relativity, there's no particular reason you can't > >have light waves and still have atoms that demonstrate the PE effect, > >right? > > There is. That's been known for a century Some people have known that for a century, but were they right? Why can't you have waves and still have atoms that do PE? What's the problem with that? Though I hope that's a side issue for Sagnac and BaTH. > >> >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. > > > >Sure, but your model isn't better than their model until you have > >something that works. > > It does work. It produces the experimentally verified equation for > sagnac. Why do you think 'inertial' and Jerry are so desperate to find > a flaw in my theory? I am a threat to their whole belief system. Poor > old Jerry has backed a loser all his life. Do you think he wants to > know about it? Anybody who can program can write a computer program that delivers some particular result. In the worst case I could write a program that takes the known data and known results and provide the known results when given the known data. That "works" but it has no predictive power. Incidentally, is your source code available? I don't know how to derive it from a Windows .exe file. > >> 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.. I got a lot from this statement, it seemed to say something specific that did not match what I was already thinking. If this was what you meant then it would explain why I had so consistently misunderstood what you were saying. > >So turns go with distance independent of time. Light can have > >different"wavelengths", it can have a different number of turns per > >unit distance, but it's distance that matters independent of the time > >or the speed. We can stop talking about frequency. Turns, distance, > >and time give everything so far. There's polarization, which people > >interpret as linear in any direction perpendicular to the direction > >of travel, or as circular, or as elliptical. At this point my > >interpretation of their interpretation is that the axis of turning > >can be any direction in 3D. When it's the direction of travel it's > >circular polarization. When it's perpendicular to the direction of > >travel you get linear polarization in the third direction. You'll > >probably want something analogous for your turns because what they do > >fits the reality on some level. > > Any theory about the nature of photons has to explain polarization. > Maxwell's wave theory does that but it requires a medium. I believe a > photon carries it own little bit of 'aether' ...and that's where the > intrinsic oscillation occurs. Fields cannot simply happen in > 'nothing'. As I've pointed out many times, space carrying a field must > be different from space devoid of fields. What might that difference > be? Maxwell's description of light works fine without a medium. He made some criteria that he says electricity and magnetism must match. They can do lots of things but all those things will fit his general description. In general, electromagnetism is conservative -- energy does not just pop out of nowhere. The effects change smoothly over time and space, and apart from special circumstances spread out with an inverse square law. Magnetism can be created by a moving charge, and whether you think it's electricity or magnetism depends on your relative speed. Etc. You can "explain" polarization if you assume that a photon can turn in any direction. Then a turn at right angles to the motion gives you linear polarization, a turn with the axis in the direction of motion gives you circular polarization, and anything else is elliptical. It takes more assumptions to explain how things cancel and reinforce, but this simple model is enough to give you the different kinds of polarization. I don't think it's very interesting to speculate about space devoid of fields because you can't actually measure anything about it. Once you try to measure something you're putting mass or energy into it and then it has fields (or whatever it is that fields are supposed to describe). > >> >> >> 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. > > > >OK! I really thought we were making progress at this point. > >> >> 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. > > > >The distance from the emitter to the detector never changes. What > >changes is the distance from the emitter at time t0 to the detector > >at time t1. OK. > > Yes, these are the emission and detection points (in the inertial > frame) for a particular (infinitesimal) element of a ray. > You would find this is pretty simple stuff if you would bother to > calculate what the distance 'vt' is for different rotational speeds. This is where I went wrong. It was so simple to say the number of turns depends only on distance. But you're saying something else. Something like, the number of turns depends only on distance in the light's frame. But then it depends on time too. > >> >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 > > > >Yes. t is the same either way. > > > >> >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. > > > >[sigh] I almost took you seriously saying you didn't know. Your > >answer is that the number of turns is different although it takes the > >same time to arrive both ways. > > > >So, let's pretend for the moment that the light is a series of > >rotating particles, and the particles themselves are in phase. One of > >them leaves the emitter, then the next one, and then the one after > >that. Each of them is at a different part of its rotation cycle when > >it leaves, so they will each be at a different part of the cycle when > >they arrive anywhere. It is like waves that roll onto the beach, the > >wave crests do not stay frozen. If one particle moves at c+v and the > >other at c-v, and the first goes a distance d(c+v) and the second at > >a distance d(c-v), they will not be in phase at the end because one > >of them has rotated 2dv times farther than the other. Even though > >they start out at the same place in their rotation they don't end up > >that way because they are rotating at different speeds, proportional > >to their speed and proportional to the distance they cover. > > > >OK, I can see it that way. > > The detector doesn't care much about the element itself. It is > receiving'waves' while the element is in transit from E to D. > The number of waves counted is:pathlength/wavelength. Oh. If all the individual elements cancel at one spot then the whole wave cancels at that spot and the interference works. For elements to cancel they need to cancel at the same time, otherwise everything cancels everywhere. Since the light that arrives at one time is the light that left at one time, you get your interference if that light is out of phase at that time. I don't think you need to count waves. > >> >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. > > > >If the frequency is constant then it goes one way. If the wavelength > >is constant it goes differently. > > As I said, it it not the frequency of the particular element that > matters. It is the number of waves counted while the element is in > transit. Is it the number of waves you count, or is it the turns the element makes? I thought I was getting to an understanding of what you were saying, but now it looks like I was mistaken. > >How do we choose between those? Well, I have assumed that the > >particles are in phase when they leave the emitter. The two that > >leave in two opposite directions and at different speeds are at the > >same angle in their rotation. If one of them rotates slower than the > >other and travels slower, then when the time comes to send the second > >particles the slow ones will be closer together. So if you look at > >the distance between the waves, it will be closer for the slow side! > >Even though we said"wavelength" was the same! On the slow side the > >particles are moving slower and rotating slower so they each rotate > >once in the same distance, but the apparent wavelength will be > >shorter! > > No it wont. It is an absolute distance. You are using the wrong model. I hate it when that happens. Now I'm back to not understanding what you mean at all. > >So number of turns is something distinct from traditional wavelength. > >You have to give it a new name or people will confuse it with > >wavelength and they will misunderstand. > > There has never been a proper definition of eitIher 'wavelength' OR > 'frequency' in the case of light. Wave theories appeared to explain > diffraction and quit a few other properties of light but quantum > mechanics put an end to all that. In reality nobody knows a bloody > thing about the nature of a photon or about light in transit. Physics > is very much in its infancy.... and Einstein hasn't helped one iota. Make something that looks like it might work and run with it. You talk like you've done that, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding out how your model works.
From: Jonah Thomas on 16 Sep 2009 11:59 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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 > > > > Yes. > > > >> 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. > > > > But the number of turns from the source X to the detectors is the > > same. > > Just like in Sagnac. > > But the number of turns fomr o (like the fixed point in the > non-rotating frame in sagnac) is not the same > > >> So according to Henry's model, there should be a phase difference > >at> the detectors. > > > > I think he would say that the light heading toward D1 slows down and > > the light heading toward D2 speeds up, just exactly the amount > > needed so they reach D1 and D2 at the same time. > > > > Same time, same number of turns. No phase difference. > > Just like in Sagnac > > >> 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. > > > > There is not. > > Just like in Sagnac > > > But this is just like the Sagnac experiment, except it's cut open at > > the detector and unwrapped. > > EXACTLY !!! > > > How can we get a phase shift one time and not the other? > > EXACTLY !!! > > > Wilson claims > > that in the Sagnac case we have an unambiguous velocity > > No .. we don't .. its observer dependant like every velocity No, if you switch to the rotating apparatus frame that isn't an inertial frame. You can tell whether you're rotating or not. The Sagnac apparatus can tell that. If you can tell whether or not you're rotating, then you can do everything in the nonrotating frame. In the inertial frame it would look like two different frequencies and wavelengths of light in the two directions. But something about this argument bothers me. I think Wilson says it isn't his idea anyway. > > so we can > > measure the difference in length on the two sides. But clearly the > > velocity is arbitrary in the unrolled case. > > It makes no difference It does. There's no reason to expect the same results in an inertial frame as you get in a rotating frame. But it still bothers me. > > But he says that the rotation in the Sagnac case results in an > > actual change in distance traveled by the wave. > > How .. why ? The same way as the classical and SR arguments, except that the waves move at different speeds and arrive at the same time. The classical case don't you argue that the speeds are the same and the distances are different because of the rotation and so one side arrives later? And they're out of phase because of that? This way the speeds are different and the distances are different because of the rotation and so both sides arrive at the same time even though the distances are different. The question is whether that should cause interference. Clearly it should not when the path is straight. Just because you are traveling at a different speed is no reason for you to expect the light to reach the detector at a different phase. Should it work in the circular case? The easy answer is to have the speeds vary with direction, so that the speed differences average out to the same speed in both directions. Then you get nearly the same interference as the classical and SR cases. Wilson has a different answer, and I thought I was close to it but I was not. > > This is not a distance that is > > independent of time and speed. If we look at the actual physical > > distance that must be crossed, it is, well, the whole way around in > > both directions. > > Just like in my little example above .. according to 'o' there are two > > different physical distance being crossed > > > If the number of turns depends on that distance then -- no > > phase shift. And if it depends on distance and time then the > > constant number of turns per unit distance is gone. > > > > I think probably you're right and my understanding of Wilson's idea > > does not work. I'll check it again in the morning. > > OK. Have fun. > > Just refer the same logic back to the diagram above. It has all the > important features the same as Sagnac (in a non-relativistic > framework). 'o' is analogous to fixed point in the inertial frame at > the source that Henry is so fond of. The distance o..D1, and o..D2 > are analogous to the different path lengths in Sagnac. The light > travels the different distances in the same time at two different > speed (c+v and c-v). The lack of phase difference is the same. Yes, that part makes sense. But an inertial observer will not get that same result with the Sagnac case because it's wrapped around into a circle, and the rotation of the apparatus will look like a rotation to him.
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 10:40 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:s201b590923j0kifo56t7netr71vtodb9i(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:16:16 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>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. > > This hasn't much to do with sagnac Shut up, Wilson, nobody is listening to you anymore. Go sell used cars to unsuspecting ozzies.
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 10:42
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:i4b1b5dch6b9ebtu3odnrnuka4hir5vdur(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:40:56 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> > >>> > >>> >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. >> >>Sure, but it gives a model that does result in the waves moving in >>concentric circles independent of frame, and so far it's largely >>compatible with experimental evidence. What more would you want? Well, >>it would be nice if it made sense. But apart from that.... > > Wake up. There is NO experimental evidence. Shut up, Wilson. Nobody is listening to your babbling anymore. |