The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 19:35 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:n7d5b5p4r2fk5f8pfcsmdqr1ldvt4d23s3(a)4ax.com... > I suspect there are > processes involved that we know nothing about. Henry finally admits he knows nothing about it.
From: Androcles on 17 Sep 2009 20:00 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:n7d5b5p4r2fk5f8pfcsmdqr1ldvt4d23s3(a)4ax.com... > 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: >> THOMAS: >>> >>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 >>> > WILSON: >>> > 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 >>> ANDROCLES: >>> That says it all. >>> >>> http://yfrog.com/10wavedg leaves a history of an oscillation of a red >>> dot. >> THOMAS: >>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. ANDROCLES: Very good, Jonah. I'll lift the plonk when you've had a while talking to the idiot Wilson and experienced the nonsense he sputters as I have for ten years. In the meantime I'll take a perverse pleasure in watching you suffer as I have. >> >>> http://img33.yfrog.com/i/wavec.gif/ has no cause. >> THOMAS: >>Hey would you like it better if I showed a little plunger swooshing up >>and down on the left side? ANDROCLES: That might work if the wave amplitude decayed exponentially. All the radio waves I've ever heard never did reach far across the country. In the USA I couldn't QED-FM from Pittsburgh anywhere more than about 100 miles away, whether heading toward Erie, Harrisburg, Charleston WV or Columbus Ohio. Two hours driving and off goes the music, put the tapes on. For water waves it's even worse, they don't get across Lake Arthur at its narrowest. THOMAS: >> 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. ANDROCLES: Nature doesn't do what Wilson or Einstein wants, that's why their theories are crackpot theories and they are both cranks followed by blind sheep. Well, Wilson is so crazed not even one sheep will follow him. Wilson doesn't like Einstein (fair enough) but he doesn't understand it either and wants to replace it with BaTh and WaSh and unifuckation, not emission theory; then he screams and shouts and stamps his feet when told he's talking rubbish. >> >>> 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. >> THOMAS: >>Here's the idea. If a wave ****(1) 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 ****(2) 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. ANDROCLES: Footnotes ***(1)(2) referred to above. In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, in both protasis and apodosis. -- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" Light is a stream of photons, your statements are non sequitur. THOMAS: >>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. ANDROCLES: A mass on a spring can't oscillate if there are other nearby masses on springs? Hmm... news to me. Have you been listening to Wilson, Jonah? THOMAS: >>And yet it does work for one red dot. I haven't thoroughly checked yet ANDROCLES: Time you did, then, because masses on springs, like photons, beat together when touching. THOMAS: >>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. ANDROCLES: When you've stopped doing as Wilson does, inventing your own rules of Nature, let me know. In the meantime I'll pass you back to the crank Wilson. WILSON: > 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. ANDROCLES: It's a mystery to you, Wilson. My photons obey E= -dB/dt. Of course the ultimate mystery is "What is mass, what is a field"; but that's philosophical, not physics that an engineer can make use of. Once you've understood it, if you ever do, it'll be Wilson's theory that Wilson thought of. What you need is me hospital so that you can tell the world how you thought of it, as you did in 2002 after spending 15 years on your Wobbly Wedge-on Worbit program that you started in 1999 after I told you how to program an ellipse and you didn't understand it. Now go back to your cheap wine, used VW sheep transport salesman, and leave physics to those that understand it.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 17 Sep 2009 21:14 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:31:56 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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: >>>> 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. You really don't have a clue about sagnac. It is embarassing to converse with you....worse than with Androcles.. FRINGE DISPLACEMENT is what a ring gyro monitors. IT is proportional to angular velocity. PHASE SHIFTING and fringe MOVEMENT occur during a speed change. We are discussing the phase DIFFERENCE between emitter and detector and what causes it. Since nobody has much of a clue as to how, when or why a photon possesses any any kind of periodicity, any comments you make are likely to be more complete nonsense. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 17 Sep 2009 21:26 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:24:31 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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 !! That's the mistake you make when you use the rotating frame. >>> 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 They don't arrive in phase. We don't know anything about this 'phase' thing as it applies to photons. You are still trying to use a classical wave model. >> 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. Jonah is capable of thinking. You aren't. >>> > 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. I do have a consistent model. It is based on an invariant wavelength and different ray path lengths. In its favour it has the advantage that it gives the right answer. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 17 Sep 2009 21:31
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:00:22 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:n7d5b5p4r2fk5f8pfcsmdqr1ldvt4d23s3(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:47:47 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >THOMAS: >>> 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. > >ANDROCLES: >Nature doesn't do what Wilson or Einstein wants, that's why their >theories are crackpot theories and they are both cranks followed >by blind sheep. My crackpot theory is so crackpot that it gives the right answer. That must upset you terribly. >Well, Wilson is so crazed not even one sheep will >follow him. Wilson doesn't like Einstein (fair enough) but he doesn't >understand it either and wants to replace it with BaTh and WaSh >and unifuckation, not emission theory; then he screams and shouts >and stamps his feet when told he's talking rubbish. .....well YOU should know all about talking rubbish.... >>>> 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. >>> > >THOMAS: >>>Here's the idea. If a wave >****(1) >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 >****(2) >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. > >ANDROCLES: >Footnotes ***(1)(2) referred to above. >In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to > past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled', > the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive, > in both protasis and apodosis. >-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax" > >Light is a stream of photons, your statements are non sequitur. > > >THOMAS: >>>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. > >ANDROCLES: >A mass on a spring can't oscillate if there are other nearby >masses on springs? Hmm... news to me. Have you been >listening to Wilson, Jonah? > >THOMAS: >>>And yet it does work for one red dot. I haven't thoroughly checked yet > >ANDROCLES: >Time you did, then, because masses on springs, like photons, beat >together when touching. > >THOMAS: >>>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. > >ANDROCLES: >When you've stopped doing as Wilson does, inventing your own >rules of Nature, let me know. In the meantime I'll pass you back >to the crank Wilson. > > > >WILSON: >> 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. > >ANDROCLES: >It's a mystery to you, Wilson. My photons obey E= -dB/dt. >Of course the ultimate mystery is "What is mass, what is a >field"; but that's philosophical, not physics that an engineer can >make use of. Once you've understood it, if you ever do, >it'll be Wilson's theory that Wilson thought of. What you need >is me hospital so that you can tell the world how you thought of >it, as you did in 2002 after spending 15 years on your Wobbly >Wedge-on Worbit program that you started in 1999 after I told >you how to program an ellipse and you didn't understand it. >Now go back to your cheap wine, used VW sheep transport >salesman, and leave physics to those that understand it. My ellipses are generated in a quite different way to yours. You taught me nuthin'. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |