The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 10:57 "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 That says it all. http://yfrog.com/10wavedg leaves a history of an oscillation of a red dot. http://img33.yfrog.com/i/wavec.gif/ has no cause. Real waves work the other way around: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif The boy has it back arsewards. I agree, you don't really think. You don't really observe, either.
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 11:03 "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. Well you should also 'frame jump' the > frequencies. > of phase. The photons jump frames when they enter and leave the beam splitter, it's not a crime. There is no such animal as frequency of phase, you are babbling as usual.
From: Jonah Thomas on 16 Sep 2009 14:47 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> 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 > > > > 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 > > That says it all. > > http://yfrog.com/10wavedg leaves a history of an oscillation of a red > dot. Yes. This fits what Wilson was talking about, but that history is not what I want. If other dots follow behind in that one's trail they will not oscillate right. > http://img33.yfrog.com/i/wavec.gif/ has no cause. Hey would you like it better if I showed a little plunger swooshing up and down on the left side? The point is that this acts like people expect waves to, but the red dot at the front doesn't do what I think Wilson wants. > Real waves work the other way around: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif > The boy has it back arsewards. > I agree, you don't really think. You don't really observe, either. Here's the idea. If a wave works like the second kind, when the Sagnac slow wave gets to the end it will be out of phase compared to the place it started. But the red dot at the end will be *in* phase and the place where it started is of purely historical interest and all's right with the world, no interference. But if a wave works like the first kind, where the red dot goes up and down as it travels, when it gets to the end it will be out of phase compared to the place it started and this time it *matters*. it's the red dot that's out of phase and not the distant spot that nobody cares about any more. A wave that works that way will get interference given Wilson's other assumptions. But the red dots that come after that one can't just follow in its trail or there will be no oscillation as they travel, no dE/dt or dB/dt. And yet it does work for one red dot. I haven't thoroughly checked yet whether Michelson-Morley works for one red dot that does this. I believe it does, as follows: Light that consistently travels at c+v will bounce off all mirrors and travel at c+v, ending all paths at the detector at the same time. Since the interference pattern depends only on wavelength and not on speed or frequency, it will not change even if the light source is the sun at dusk and dawn, or a star at different equinoxes provided the wavelength stays the same when the speed changes from c-v to c+v.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 17:22 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:28:42 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:1nv0b5ps33cb1oobp9b1mn3ubqmoc1n7j5(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:13:57 +0100, "Androcles" >>>>>>>You failed to answer, Wilson. >>>>>>>What are going to do with the other 99 turns? >>>>>> >>>>>> See. I thought so. You don't know the answer... >>>>> >>>>>You failed to answer, Wilson. >>>>>What are going to do with the other 99 turns? >>>> >>>> See! You haven't a clue why 99 turns are better than one. >>> >>>You failed to answer, Wilson. >>>What are going to do with the other 99 turns? >>> > >You failed to answer, Wilson. >What are going to do with the other 99 turns? For a single turn ring gyro, the fringe displacement equals 4Aw /(c.lambda) If there are 100 turns of the fibre, have a guess what the fringe displacement is. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 17:23
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:37:39 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:crv0b5lidpk4vjmdeeq7omp3rpttvrudb0(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:14:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>I only avoided 0.01 because then you'd invoke your "reverse field >>>bubble" nonsense. You want 0.01? You got it. >>> >>>I even show what happens with the turntable rotating at >>>0.011, 10% greater than the speed of light. >>>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm >>> >>>No matter what, your model predicts nonsense at all speeds. >> >> .....Strange how it gets the right answer.... >> >The right answer: >"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechModel.gif >for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. >" - Einstein ( the only part the mental midget got right). >You have the wrong answer. 4Aw /cl "If the facts don't match the figures, change the facts".......Androcles Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |