The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 06:47 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090917041529.35594937.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 >> >> > "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. Yeup > Because of the different speeds he sees the wavelength the same. Wavelengths are the same for everyone for a wave (we're treating this non-relativisticly, of course). > He sees > the number of waves from X to D1 and X to D2 the same as always. Just like in Sagnac .. it you take the path from where the source is at the time the rays meet the detector (ie at the same place). Same number of wavelength from current source location to current detector location. Henry yells 'frame jumping' when you point that out, of course, even though you're looking at everything from the one frame (a rotating one) > That's what he ought to see. Everybody sees the distance from o to the > detectors as different. That's right >> >> > 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. Do you see here now how that doesn't really matter in a ballistic analysis? >> >> >> 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 Yeup .. its all relative. [snip a bit for brevity] >> 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.
From: Androcles on 17 Sep 2009 06:47 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:ie14b59bhtlvfiiogmemn1a2fho9ght1cd(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:16:11 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:met3b55eqs2h633tkk3l8or5h09irgapsb(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >>Great try, Wilson, but I agree with Jeery. You ARE mixed up. It's >>quite possible that Jeery has come to understand EmT and YOU >>are the only fly left in the ointment. > > Are you agreeing with 'inertial' that a sagnac interferometer never > changes its > rotational speed? ,.....That wouldn't surprise me...Old Crank > apparently > does too. Great try, Wilson, but I agree with Jeery. You ARE mixed up. It's quite possible that Inertial has come to understand EmT and YOU are the picnic with the missing sandwiches. You wouldn't need 'em when you could get another bottle of cheap wine in the basket. >>Of course Tom&Jeery can easily >>reverse-engineer your pathetic rayphases in Java but I doubt it can do >>the same with >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls > > I can do that....only better... You can boast better than anyone, but then with a lifetime's experience of selling used cars that's hardly surprising. What do you say to the buyers, Wilson? "Only driven by a little old lady on Sundays to go to church", and then plant a hymn book on the back seat? "4Aw/cl" -- ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
From: Androcles on 17 Sep 2009 06:28 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:48v3b5t58a4r64p5658f8nh9n45gj7rpu1(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:49:01 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:i0t3b5hfkq6t478u0k16v7h6r9ha9nn9g1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:04:52 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> >>> wrote: > >>>>a 0.125 x 32 rectangle? >>>>They've got the same area, Wilson. One has a perimeter of 8, the >>>>other has a perimeter of 64.25 >>>> >>>>If the facts don't match Wilson's theory, buy a VW camper >>>>or Korean junkpile from him from him... >>> >>> .....sober up >> >>I'm not the one that's drunk, Wilson. You don't sell land >>by the acre as well, do you? How much does an ozzie >>cricket pitch cost? You know, the strips 22 yards long >>between wickets without any ashes? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes > > Hahahahahahaahha! you only won the ashes because you won the toss 4:1. > > But you can't win a ONE DAY MATCH.....hahahhahahaha!......... 5 in a row. > hahhahaha! > . > You're stuffed without Freddy.... It was a one man show > How much does an ozzie cricket pitch cost? You know, the strips 22 yards long between wickets without any ashes? (Not the square ones 4.69 yards on each side that have the same area.) Try and be sober enough to answer sensibly.
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 06:50 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090917045127.1df0e4ca.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "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. And then claiming this is part of a sagnac effect .. he's being dishonest and trying to trick people. > At a given rotation speed he wants a constant phse shift. If the phase > shift progressively increased that would give him a problem. But that isn't the case in Sagnac .. so its all totally irrelevant. Yet he claims it gives the correct results, when its a different scenario altogther.
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 06:52
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:ok04b5liqqdrpd77e8rjet48tmm9f2fkcl(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:51:27 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > You should have learnt by now that inertial is a hopeless case. She > claimed > that a sagnac interferometer never changes its rotational speed. Not for a given trial of the experiment, and not for the analysis of such a trial where we work out the phase shift for A GIVEN FIXED ROTATIONAL SPEED. > hahahahhahhah....can you see the funny side... I see the pathetic side of your dishonesty. How can you live with yourself, you lying deceiving little troll ? |