The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 17:27 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:42:24 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"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. Sober up...then come back... ......we'll look forward to hearing your happy voice again in a few days.... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 17:30 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:03:16 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"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. come back in a few days when you're sober... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 17:45 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:19:00 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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: >>> > 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. 'Sue' never discusses the currrent topic because he/she never knows what it is. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 16 Sep 2009 18:23 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:42:07 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ok, I have now worked out why there is confusion about this. The fact is, the phase shift already exists at the detector before a particular photon leaves. The difference originated DURING previous CHANGES in rotation speed..... as did the different path lengths. So, at constant rotation speeds, we don't want any new light to change the status quo. We want the split photons to arrive IN PHASE so the existing beams remain as they were. I'll try to draw this in linear form. At constant speed let the broad beams of the two paths be represented like this (the beams supposedly use coherent light): S /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ D S /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/v D They are in phase at the source but out of phase at the detector because of the different path lengths and the invariant wavelength of the light used. Now, let identical small 'disturbances' simultaneously leave the LHS of both rays. Let them travel at different speeds so they both arrive at the other end at the same instant. They will NOT affect the existing phase DIFFERENCE there because their contributions ADD identical amplitude changes to the ends of BOTH rays. So we wanted them to arrive in phase all along. It would be interesting to perform a sagnac experiment with single photons. I don't think it would work. My demonstrations are correct but have been wrongly interpreted. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 16 Sep 2009 19:00
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:dqm2b516m1d8cjbciive4tsuma5n16o32l(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:19:00 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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: > >>>> > 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. > > 'Sue' never discusses the currrent topic because he/she never knows what > it is. I agree with you on that observation. Though she's gotten pretty close on this one. I guess if you keep posting the same old quotes over and over, you're pound to fluke getting something relevant eventually. |