The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 17 Sep 2009 18:16 On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:47:47 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"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. You are getting the picture. the actual nature of a photon's oscillation still remains a mystery though. I'm working on possibilities but I suspect there are processes involved that we know nothing about. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 17 Sep 2009 18:40 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:63b5b5lml7sn0esh4e8efcviurg53qi0cl(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:05:54 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:vup4b5pantfl79t0e50vjp5tg6m3q0l82i(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>>In his original experiment, Sagnac typically spun his apparatus >>>>at 1- to 2+ times per second, recording displacements of several >>>>hundredths of a fringe. >>>>http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31103.pleinepage.f1410 >>> >>> Is your "1- to 2+ times per second" a constant speed? >>> >>> Both you and inertial don't seem to understand yat the fringes only MOVE >>> during >>> a speed change. The displacement at any CONSTANT speed can only be >>> determined >>> by counting the 'number of fringe widths' a particular fringe moves >>> sideways >>> DURING a speed change. >>> >>>>This is a far cry from modern fibre optic gyros and ring gyros >>>>used in inertial guidance systems, which are capable of detecting >>>>rotational rates down to 0.00001 degree per hour. >>> >>> Please tell Andro why they use lots of turns. >> >>Bwahahaha! Jeery's been plonked, Wilson. You are the only troll >> I feed because you've been domesticated, a kind of pet. You still >>have these wild, feral urges to have your own crackpot theory, >>though, and it amuses me to see you shouting. >> >> >> >>> Laser systems modulate the signal >>> to get a more sensitive AC output. >> >>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! >> >>Here, try this: http://www.sensodyne.co.uk/index.html >> >> >> >>>>Sagnac's original apparatus could not possibly have been used for >>>>monitoring one's heading in an inertial guidance system. So yes, >>>>it is not he, but YOU who is either being massively dishonest >>>>in changing the premises of the discussion, or is simply confused. >> >>I go halfway with Jeery. You, Wilson, are simply confused; you are >>too stupid or drunk to be massively dishonest. >> >> >>> inertial made the statement that 'ring gyros never change rotation >>> speed'. >>> that was the stupidest thing she has uttered yet and proves she doesn't >>> have a >>> clue what she's talking about. >> >>Maybe she doesn't, I don't bother with feral trolls. <shrug> >>Obviously no optical gyrocompass is going to mechanically >>rotate indefinitely the way a mechanical one does or they'd have >>no advantage. > > Geez you talk nonsense sometimes. Have you gone off the rails again? Geez you talk nonsense always. Have you stepped off the wagon again? > A ring gyro can be fastened to the frame of an aeroplane. It doesn't > rotate > indefinitely. It merely follows the plane's rotational movement. Use a > trio at > right angles and they can tell you very accurately where you are heading. > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 19:24 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090917124618.41d75c94.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > >> > I drew pictures and found that the way I was thinking of it was >> > wrong. >> >> Don't let him trick you > > I just did the math. > >> > The way you drew the picture was right. >> >> Nope >> >> > The alternative way that >> > Inertial and I were thinking went more like this: >> > >> > S /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> > D S/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> >> I don't follow you .. D is behind S there > > Yes, because the emitter is moving with the detector. By the time the > wavefront which was emitted at D reaches the detector the source has > moved behind D on the forward side and ahead of D on the back side. > That's why the distances are different. No .. the emitter (as you said) moves with the detector. The path from emitter to detector is the SAME LENGTH all the time !! >> I think you meant at the start (just before rays emitted) we have: >> >> S D >> S D >> >> One third of the way thru we have this for the two rays, where s is >> the stationary point s we marked in the non-rotating frame, and R is >> the leading edge of the ray (ie the photon/wave/whatever that was >> first emitted): >> >> s S/\/\/\/R D >> S/s/\/\/R D >> >> You can S has been making more photons/waves/whatevers since R .. they >> come from S's current position, not from s!! > > Yes, exactly. > >> Two thirds of the way through we have even more >> photons/waves/whatevers from S: >> >> s S/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/R D >> S/\/s/\/\/\/\/\/R D >> >> >> At the end we have >> s S/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/D >> S/\/\/s/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/D >> >> The rays arrive at D in phase, they are still in phase at the source S >> as well. >> >> What happens at s doesn't make any difference !!!! > > They are in phase at D in the model you use, because you assumed they > would stay in phase and required them to do so. They can't be anything BUT be in phase in a non-relativistic situation with constant speeds and same arrival time. Unless something somehow changes the frequency relative to the detector .. but if the frequency is the same and arrival time the same (all relative to the detector) then it MUST be in phase. > In the model Wilson uses, they do not need to be in phase. HOW !!!!!! .. if they are emitted in phase they arrive in phase. Nothing happens in between to change that > His model > works just fine. Unless I made an arithmetic mistake his model works, it > gets a phase shift. I haven't checked whether it is the right phase > shift. There is no phase shift > If you want to argue about whether his assumptions are unreasonable we > can, but I don't think it's arguable whether he gets a phase shift or > not. Yes .. it most definitely is worth arguing about. His has a fixed source in the inertial frame and a moving detector, with the fixed source emitting two different frequency waves at two different speeds. This is nothing like Sagnac >> > http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave4.gif >> > http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave6.gif The points on the left side that move left and right (and so get further and closer to the destination) correspond to where the source WAS when the FIRST photon/wave/ray was emitted. But you show waves continually emitted from that location. That is NOT the case. The photons/waves/rays are emitted a constant distance from D at all times. >> You are showing the waves (in the rotating frame point of view) >> continually emitted a source point that changes distance from D (ie >> our point s above). There is NO SUCH SOURCE OF WAVES IN SAGNAC !!!! > > ?? In Sagnac, when the detector moves the source moves with it, right? Yes .. you don't show that .. you have the distance from source to detector changing !!! > So one source appears to get farther from D while the other appears to > get closer. No .. can't you read that you just contrradicted yourself "detector moves with source" "source..get farther..get closer" The source CANNOT get farther and closer to the detector when ther is ONE source and it moves WITH the detector > Because by the time the light that is getting emitted later > reaches D, D will be farther away. No !!!!! The detector is always THE SAME DISTANCE FORM THE SOURCE. Henry has tricked you by changing his model and changing his scenario overt and over so you no longer know what the experiment is we're talking about. >> > Once we assume constant wavelength, it is absurd to have the waves >> > get out of phase at the actual source. Wilson's alternative is the >> > only one that can make sense, >> >> No .. it doesn't > > It might not, but as I understand it yours makes no sense at all with > constant wavelength. It works perfectly with fixed wavelength > You can argue that it can't be constant wavelength, I'm not > or you can show me how I misunderstood your constant-wavelength model. I don't know what your misunderstanding could possibly be, so I can't correct it >> > unless we find a way to change hidden assumptions I >> > didn't notice I was making. >> > >> > If Wilson's approach doesn't work either then it will probably turn >> > out that it simply does not make sense to have waves with constant >> > wavelength in this circumstance. >> >> Why is all this so hard for you and Henry? > > Wilson thinks he knows something you don't, BAHAHAH > but he has trouble explaining it. Because he doesn't .. he's just making stuff up and confusing himself (and you) and doesn't know what-the-hell he's talking about. > I'm trying to understand what he's saying and whether he > can be right. If he had a consistent model for the scenario, and if his scenario was the same as the Sagnac we are discussing, then that would be a worthwhile pursuit. > My previous objection was wrong. I thought I was agreeing > with you, and if so you were wrong too. But I may have misunderstood you > just like I misunderstood him for so long. Quite likely. > Finding that the reason I thought he was wrong was itself wrong doesn't > make him right. But it leaves open the possibility. I don't know whether > I'll find other objections. And of course, his model can work and still > not fit the reality. No .. a model that doesn't fit reality isn't a working model > But I was wrong to say that he couldn't have his > Sagnac waves get out of phase. He can't !!! If you think he can .. please explain how it can happen. > This is progress. No .. you've gone backwards. Henry posts to try to trick people and convince them he's right even though he knows he's not .. its his game .. he'll chop and change and draw misleading diagrams, until you're so confused he can get you to think what he says is right. That's why he posts here. To repeat. The source of the waves/photons/whatever MOVES WITH THE DETECTOR. The distance between the source and the detector IS THE SAME ALL THE TIME. The distance between where the source WAS and the detector is NOW changes, because the source moves. if the waves/photons/rays are in phase at the source, and have the same speed and frequency relative to the source (they do) and if when they arrive at they arrive at the detector at the same time, with the same speed and frequency relative to the detector (they do) then they must still be in phase. (again, note this is all non-relativistic analysis).
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 19:31 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:bbb5b55qhogf1fa1gvfb6huh3glruqtbvb(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:52:15 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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: > >>>>> >>> 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. >>>>> >> > >>> 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. > > There is is no fringe movement at constant speed. How do you measure > fringe > displacement if you don't change speeds? Sagnac has phase shift at constant angular velocity, the shift is proportion to the angular velocity Read up on it .. you've been chopping and changing and going in circles so much yourself, you don't know what the Sagnac experiment is any more.
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 19:34
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:2nb5b5p11jkte122neg3i6q40cf7jvfgct(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:04:42 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>> 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. >> >>I drew pictures and found that the way I was thinking of it was wrong. >> >>The way you drew the picture was right. The alternative way that >>Inertial and I were thinking went more like this: >> >>S /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> D S/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> >>Here the beginning is in phase, and the end is in phase, but the waves >>are now out of phase at the point D where they both started -- which >>does not matter. >> >>But the reality for our alternative is: >> >>S /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> D S\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> >>They would be in phase at the end and at the spot they started at (if >>you extend the shorter wave back to that spot), but they are not in >>phase at the source. >> >>Here are the pictures: >> >>http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave4.gif >>http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave6.gif > > The waves must start out together. They also arrive at the detector > together > but one travels further than the other. > >>Once we assume constant wavelength, it is absurd to have the waves get >>out of phase at the actual source. Wilson's alternative is the only one >>that can make sense, unless we find a way to change hidden assumptions I >>didn't notice I was making. >> >>If Wilson's approach doesn't work either then it will probably turn out >>that it simply does not make sense to have waves with constant >>wavelength in this circumstance. > > You are not considering what happens during a CHANGE in speed. There is NO CHANGE IN SPEED in the Sagnac experiment and analysis. The experiment is conducted and measurements made with a given angular velocity. Then repeated at other angular velocities. There is no change in angular velocity required to get a phase difference in Sagnac. |