The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 16:40 "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 in message > >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, > >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. > > > > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an > > emission theory where the speed of light varies, > > Which it does > > > but it doesn't vary with an > > aether, it varies with the light. > > That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the > light? Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it keeps that velocity. > > light is given a velocity of up to c+v > > when it is emitted from its source. > > Relative to what? Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has relative to that observer. > > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected > > off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of > > occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. > > Yes > > > Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. I meant that it doesn't change speed. Of course it changes direction. Thank you for not picking on me about that. > No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive > fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by > SR and LET. OK. > Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It > is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by > emission theories. > > Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and > naive fixed aether theories. > > > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment > > disproves emission theory, > > It does > > > which Androcles argues against strongly. > > He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a > coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the > observed Sagnac effect. I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time too. I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of poetry, that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but that isn't applied the way people usually do. The sort of thing that doesn't help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look back later and say "That's what he was talking about". I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. They made it seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler effects from some stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 8 Sep 2009 18:24 On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:40:07 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"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 in message > >> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. >> > >> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an >> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, >> >> Which it does >> >> > but it doesn't vary with an >> > aether, it varies with the light. >> >> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the >> light? > >Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it keeps >that velocity. > >> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v >> > when it is emitted from its source. >> >> Relative to what? > >Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has relative >to that observer. > >> > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected >> > off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of >> > occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. >> >> Yes >> >> > Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. > >I meant that it doesn't change speed. Of course it changes direction. >Thank you for not picking on me about that. > >> No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive >> fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by >> SR and LET. > >OK. > >> Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It >> is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by >> emission theories. >> >> Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and >> naive fixed aether theories. >> >> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment >> > disproves emission theory, >> >> It does >> >> > which Androcles argues against strongly. >> >> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a >> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the >> observed Sagnac effect. > >I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't >understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible >with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time too. >I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of poetry, >that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but that >isn't applied the way people usually do. The sort of thing that doesn't >help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look back later and >say "That's what he was talking about". > >I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia >article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. They made it >seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the >double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler >effects from some stars. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory I would bother conversing with 'inetial' if I were you. She's an indoctrinated fool and a total waste of time. Sagnac is explained perfectly well by BaTh...as I have shown at both: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm Binary star data is the most convincing proof of BaTh yet. De Sitter's experiments to the contrary were nonsense. This program produces just about all the variable star curves that are observed purely on c+v grounds. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe I didn't spend fifteen years writing the bloody thing for nothing. Andro has a similar program that produces the same curves. Sekerin did it 70 years ago without a computer and found the same curves. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 8 Sep 2009 18:26 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090908164007.0246f8dd.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "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 in message > >> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. >> > >> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an >> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, >> >> Which it does >> >> > but it doesn't vary with an >> > aether, it varies with the light. >> >> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the >> light? > > Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it keeps > that velocity. Yeah, we call that inertia. The idiot calling itself "Inertial" has an inert brain. > >> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v >> > when it is emitted from its source. >> >> Relative to what? > > Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has relative > to that observer. > >> > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected >> > off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of >> > occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. >> >> Yes >> >> > Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. > > I meant that it doesn't change speed. Of course it changes direction. > Thank you for not picking on me about that. > >> No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive >> fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by >> SR and LET. > > OK. > >> Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It >> is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by >> emission theories. >> >> Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and >> naive fixed aether theories. >> >> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment >> > disproves emission theory, >> >> It does >> >> > which Androcles argues against strongly. >> >> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a >> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the >> observed Sagnac effect. > > I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't > understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible > with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time too. > I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of poetry, > that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but that > isn't applied the way people usually do. Only if you don't know what the coriolis effect is. Not being able to watch a movie on your toy computer doesn't help you much, but I'll post it AGAIN. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov The sort of thing that doesn't > help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look back later and > say "That's what he was talking about". > > I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia > article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. They made it > seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the > double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler > effects from some stars. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 8 Sep 2009 19:01 On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:02:30 -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: >> >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> My theory about radio waves is that they consist of a great many >> >> photons, the density of which is modulated by the motion of the >> >> electrons. The electrons are accelerating continuously and in doing >> >> so, radiate heaps of photons with more or less random >> >energies....the> radio wave structure is made up by the photon >> >density wave. > A radio wave is not a single photon like a quanta of >> >light emitted by> an atom. The frequency of a generated radio wave >> >bears no relation to> the 'frequency' of an individual photon, >> >whatever that may signify. >> > >> >Can your theory predict what will come out of a 400 foot radio tower? >> >If so, does it predict anything interesting? >> >> What sort of a question is that? I could answer, "pigeons". > >I'm still pretty new to most of this. > >http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/radio11.htm > >These guys claim that electrons inside the antenna of a radio >transmitter are traveling at close to lightspeed, and so the antenna >needs to be long enough for them to get from one end to the other during >the cycle. That depends on the frequency. As long as they experience accelerations...which they do....they will radiate. >I am looking for things that move very fast and emit EMR that emission >theory gives testable results for. Double stars give suggestive evidence >but you kind of have to believe in it already or you'll just shrug it >off. We don't only believe in it, we have proof. And by the way, real scientists dont have beliefs. >We already know that there's a lot we don't know about astronomy. Astronomers have been led completely astray by Einstein's stupid second postulate. The observe Willusions (illusions due to variable light speed, named after me) and think they are seeing reality. >What can we get to move very fast under controlled conditions? Subatomic >particles. And they can radiate. If emission theory can tell us what >kind of radiation to expect from them, it might give us something that >can actually be tested. If your theory says that light coming off of >particles in a linear accelerator (or a synchrotron) will be dopplered >some particular way, or will come from a particular angle, or will >travel at a testable velocity, then we have something to work with. If >you can make testable predictions about radio towers that's even better >-- make friends with an engineer who works with a radio tower, and maybe >with a small plane pilot, and you might be able to collect the data >using cheap homemade equipment. I think it's time you did some reading. I'm not going to teach you the whole of physics. It has been claimed by relativists that pions moving near c decay into gamma particle that also move at c and not 2c. This and similar experiments are a joke. >> >There's the complication that these signals are passing through air. >> >But if the theory predicts anything interesting it might be possible >> >to get data about communication among satellites where that >> >complication is much reduced. The relative velocity of the satellites >> >may be small, but the velocity of the actual source inside the >> >antenna would be large, if it's relevant. >> >> EM initially moves at c wrt its source. Moving air woujldn't affect it >> much at all. > >Cerenkov radiation happens because lightspeed is slow in water. Cerenkov radiation occurs when a particle traveling at near c enters a medium that has a higher refractive index. There is a rapid decelration resulting in massive radiation. Tis involves a medium and doesn't tell us anything about BaTh. Light is only 100% ballistic when in the vacuum of space. >Lightspeed is somewhat slow in air, isn't it? So your EM that starts out >at c+v would slow down to something less than c in some distance, maybe >quickly enough to interfere with experiments. Far better if you can >predict the results than if you have to apply fudge factors to account >for extra variables. When you mention velocities, you must alway give a reference. Light initially moves at c wrt it source. (although that speed might be very slightly energy dependent) >> >What about synchrotron radiation? >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation >> >> When charges accelerate they radiate. THe maths for that has been >> known for a long time. >> But I have often wondered how they can know how and when to radiate if >> what they radiate is quantized. > >Why would it be quantised? It isn't electrons jumping from one level to >another in an intact atom. It's only atoms emitting and absorbing light >that are quantised, right? Charges that circle continuously in a >synchrotron surely emit light continuously. What is emitted is quantized. >> >Apparently SR gives some interesting predictions which are claimed to >> >fit the actual data. If emission theory were to duplicate those >> >predictions that would be a plus. >> >> SR is nonsense from start to finish...Forget it. Einstein was a hoaxer >> and an expert salesman. > >If emission theory is correct, then SR has had whatever successes it has >by predicting the same results that emission theory gets -- using more >complicated methods. Where SR is correct, it uses similar reasoning to BaTh. In the MMX for instance, SR simply says light moves at c in an inertial frame threfore it is c wrt all the mirrors. That is straight BaTh. Also, TWLS measurements always produce the same value for the universal constant c. that is exactly what BaTh predicts. Nobody has so far measured OWLS from a moving source so Einstein's silly aether theory, with its trendy jargon and maths has prevailed for 100 years by impressing little boys and girls like eric geese and inertial. >SR says that after you take time dilation and length compression etc >into account, a light source that looks like it emits circular light >waves from its own frame will also look like it's emitting circular >light waves from all other frames. That's the postulate. ...no proof >So does emission theory, without the time dilation and length >compression! No it doesn't. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation >"When high-energy relativistic electrons are forced to travel in a >curved path by a magnetic field, synchrotron radiation is produced, >similar to a radio antenna, but with the difference that the >relativistic speed changes the observed frequency due to the Doppler >effect by a factor ?. Relativistic Lorentz contraction bumps the >frequency by another factor of ?, thus multiplying the GeV frequency of >the resonant cavity that accelerates the electrons into the X-ray range. >Another dramatic effect of relativity is that the radiation pattern is >distorted from the isotropic dipole pattern expected from >non-relativistic theory into an extremely forward-pointing cone of >radiation." There are other reasons for these phenomena. Different laws apply to accelerating charges. SR is supposed to apply to neutral objects. >I haven't followed up the details, but somebody on wikipedia claims that >SR accounts for a frequency change of a couple of gammas, and explains >the changed angle of emission. If traditional methods got the frequency >wrong and the radiation pattern wrong, and if SR got those right, and if >emission theory is correct, then SR got it right by predicting some >things to work the way emission theory says they would. So emission >theory would predict the same things, without the lorentz contraction >etc. It does...but usually nobody has looked for the BaTh explanation because no funding would be made available by the indoctrinated physics establishment. >So it seems to me the obvious plan is to gradually go through all of >optics etc and see what emission theory predicts, looking for things >involving a moving source that classical physics gets wrong and emission >theory gets right, and look hard for things that emission theory gets >wrong. In the ideal case we would find that emission theory never gets a >wrong conclusion and that it gets right everything that SR does and >more. What do you think we have been doing here for the past fifteen years. I and others have cleared up Sagnac, Binary stars, relativistic mass increase, Fizeau, the muon hoax, and the rest. Many of these now refute SR but the members of the einsteinian church will never adnit they are wrong. >And I find it plausible that SR could get some things right >because it was carefully designed to get some of the same results that >emission theory gets, with the added assumption of constant lightspeed. >All the extra hoops they have to jump through came from that extra >assumption. Einstein and Walter Ritz were strong rivals in 1900. They conversed a lot but disagreed. Unfortunately Ritz died prematurely and Einstein was left more or less unopposed. I suspect Einstein suspected Ritz was right...which is why he concocted his clock synching definition. (he knew it could never be proved wrong) >But Androcles claims that emission theory gives you a >constant measured lightspeed, GawD! Haven't you learnt anything. That is NOT what Andro would ever say even when drunk. >although the lightspeed is not actually >constant. If that's true, then you've got a theory which is in all ways >better than SR except for the detail that it is almost universally >ignored. And -- I repeat -- SR could get some correct results because of >the way it partially mimics emission theory. Time you did some reading..and thinking BaTh and SR are worlds apart...totally incompatible... Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 8 Sep 2009 19:11
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:i1mda59la386teku47cjnrhcb46b0g5sp1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:40:07 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > I didn't spend fifteen years writing the bloody thing for nothing. Andro > has a > similar program that produces the same curves. Sekerin did it 70 years ago > without a computer and found the same curves. 2000 isn't 15 years ago, Wilson, it's 9 years ago. As for Sekerin, his paper is dated 1987. That's 22 years ago, not 70. But then, you never could count but could always bullshit. My DOS version was written in 1987 and the Windows version in 1993. Gnosiological Peculiarities in the Interpretation of Observations (For Example the Observation of Binary Stars) Vladimir I. Sekerin Originally published in Russian in Contemporary Science and Regularity in its Development, Volume 4, pp 119-123, Tomsk University, USSR (1987) V. Cheshev, Editor English translation by R.S. Fritzius and S.S. Pec, Starkville, Mississippi, U.S.A. (1988). |