The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 16 Sep 2009 23:16 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:bst2b5letioh4k5a7aebo4eo4dc5g9v9ir(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:49:19 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:vjl2b5t5hl6ju2fg82pfh8fk0kg92kr7cc(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:28:42 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> >>> wrote: > >> >>Have you seen this: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E >> >>Of course Grusenick should have realised his equipment >>was bending, he could have hung weights on it to increase >>the total shift. > > Yes. Michelson wanted to do the vertical version but couldn't because of > gravitational strain. > > However the fringes stop moving at 45 degrees not vertical. > That suggests any movemet must be in the splitting mirror and not the > frame. > > If it is due to a light speed change under gravity, the fringe > displacement > should be maximum and the fringe movement zero in the vertical position. > CMIIW > >>> If there are 100 turns of the fibre, have a guess what the fringe >>> displacement >>> is. >> >>Nothing to do with your stupid babbling 4Aw/(c.lambda), that's for sure. > > That's too hard for you. ...but it is experimentally verified. Fuckin' sure, a long thin rectangle with the same area as a square has the same shift. Cite where, bullshitting dumbfuck.
From: Jerry on 17 Sep 2009 02:32 On Sep 16, 9:50 pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > A BLOODY RING GYRO MEASURES ABSOLUTE ROTATION ANGLES BY INTEGRATING FRINGE > MOVEMENT DURING A CHANGE IN ROTATIONAL SPEED. THE FRINGE DISPLACEMENT PERFORMS > THE INTEGRATION AUTOMATICALLY. Very poor choice of words. Fringe displacement is proportional to rotational speed, and ny integrating the fringe displacement over time, one may obtain the rotation angle. The term "fringe movement" implies the first derivative of fringe displacement, and "a change in rotational speed" of course means rotational acceleration. The integral of "fringe movement" is fringe displacement, which of course is proportional to rotational speed. By confusing your terminology while yelling, you leave the distinct impression that you are mixed up. Which of course you are... Jerry
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 17 Sep 2009 04:36 On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:15:29 -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 >> >> > "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 >> >> > >> >> >> 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............... >> >> >> >> >> >> ...D1<---<---<---X--->--->--->D2 >> >> >> ..............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. > >He sees the speed as different. He sees the frequency as different. >Because of the different speeds he sees the wavelength the same. He sees >the number of waves from X to D1 and X to D2 the same as always. > >That's what he ought to see. Everybody sees the distance from o to the >detectors as 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 > >Yes. > >> >> >> 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. >> >> I didn't just limit it to those two observer frames. >> >> All velocities are relative. >> >> > You can tell whether you're rotating or not. >> >> That's because rotation is an acceleration. Acceleration isn't >> relative. > >yes, exactly. > >> > The Sagnac apparatus >> > can tell that. >> >> Yes. >> >> > If you can tell whether or not you're rotating, then you >> > can do everything in the nonrotating frame. >> >> Yes you can. Bt different inertial observer will see different >> velocities. > >The different velocities will tend to cancel out as they go around the >circle, from the different inertial observers' points of view. > >Except, no, they won't. This model calls for the light in different >directions to have a constant velocity of c+v or c-v. As it goes around >the circle it won't change velocity. An observer who is also traveling >at v would see the c+v light go at c, later it would speed up to c+2v >and go back to c. >-000000000000000000000000000000000000000l;;;;;;;;;;;;47 where did you get that idea? >> > 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. >> >> To repeat, whatever reasons Henry comes up with for the interference >> .. you need to check that they DO result in interference in the >> circular case , but do NOT in the linear case I have above. >> >> That above is your check condition, to make sure Henry's >> explanation(s) are sensible. That's why I've posted it. It gives you >> a simple 'hang on , lets see if that makes sense' test. If what he >> says results in a phase difference in both the circular AND linear >> case, it is wrong (because we know there would be no phase difference >> in the linear case). > >Yes, that's definitely one of the things that needs to be tested. Thank >you. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 17 Sep 2009 04:44 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 16, 9:50�pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> A BLOODY RING GYRO MEASURES ABSOLUTE ROTATION ANGLES BY INTEGRATING FRINGE >> MOVEMENT DURING A CHANGE IN ROTATIONAL SPEED. THE FRINGE DISPLACEMENT PERFORMS >> THE INTEGRATION AUTOMATICALLY. > >Very poor choice of words. Fringe displacement is proportional >to rotational speed, and ny integrating the fringe displacement >over time, one may obtain the rotation angle. > >The term "fringe movement" implies the first derivative of fringe >displacement, and "a change in rotational speed" of course means >rotational acceleration. The integral of "fringe movement" is >fringe displacement, which of course is proportional to >rotational speed. > >By confusing your terminology while yelling, you leave the >distinct impression that you are mixed up. > >Which of course you are... Great try Jerry. I realise you didn't want to say straight out that 'inertial' is a complette idiot because she is on YOUR side. But even YOU must admit that her claim, quote: " there's no speed changing in Sagnac. It rotates at a constant rate" truly epitomises the sad state of the relativist mentality. >Jerry Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 17 Sep 2009 04:51
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> 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. > >> > So the light has a phase shift at the detector before it gets to the > detector. You must be joking. > > >>> The difference originated DURING previous CHANGES in rotation > >>> speed..... > >> > >>There is no change in rotation speed Try to see where he's coming from. He's imagining shifts in rotation speed to see what would happen. At a given rotation speed he wants a constant phse shift. If the phase shift progressively increased that would give him a problem. Since this is a constant that gets tacked onto every photon, he wants to figure that it's a correction that happens apart from the movement of the individual photons, something that has already happened. I think he has an idea, and he hasn't worked out all the implications. So when people say there's a contradiction he looks at one angle after another for a way to resolve it. There's nothing wrong with that. He's working things out, looking for the explanation. Here's a trick that helps me in that situation. I assume I'm wrong and look at what happens the other way around. When I start finding contradictions that way, I can look at how and why they happen and that helps me see what it is that makes it work out right. And if I don't find contradictions the other way around, then I can look for contradictions in my original thinking. Flipflopping back and forth that way makes it easier to get results, although I can't be sure ahead of time which results I'll get. |