The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 17 Sep 2009 21:59 "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 > >> > 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 !! Yes, but the path that light must take to get from the emitter to the detector is different in the two directions. Because the detector moves away from one light beam and moves toward the other one. We all agree on that, right? In the case of the fast light, it's fast because the emitter is moving with it. But the detector is moving away from it too. So in my animation, the path is about 10% longer than it would be if both paths were the same length. And the slow light has a path that's about 10% shorter than it would be if both were the same length. That's correct, isn't it? I show the fast light moving back a bit and the slow light moving forward because that to me fit the detector moving away from the fast light and toward the slow light. But I could draw that some other way if you preferred. I wanted both of them to end up in the same place so it would be completely obvious whether they were in phase at the end. > >> 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. That's because you assume that the front of the wave stays the same for both. And that's a reasonable assumption. If you figure that when the light left the emitter it started at zero and the electric field then climbed to positive one and then fell to zero, why would the same spot on the wave later be anything but zero trending positive? Still, that is an assumption. And when I drew the picture your way, with the wave reaching the detector in phase and then I drew it backward to the sources with constant wavelength and speed 0.9 and 1.1 and distance 11 and 13, it was out of phase at the source. That does not work. Agreed? Surely you don't have one wave leave the emitter at some plus value at the same time the other leaves with some minus value. When I draw it in phase at the source, and then I draw the waves with the same constant wavelength, I get it out of phase at the detector. Did I choose some parameter wrong? I tested some things. Yes, the wavelength is the same. One of them goes 1.1 while the other goes 0.9. What did I do wrong? Would you like my source code, or would you want to do it yourself from scratch and see what you get? > 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. Why would the frequency be the same? The wavelength is the same and the speed is different. I'd sure expect the frequency to be different. > > 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 Check your assumptions? He isn't using the same assumptions you are. Are his wrong? How can you find out if you're so stuck on your own that you can't even understand his? > > 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 My picture could be wrong. Maybe I made a mistake that I haven't found. If you look at it closely you'll see that it has little bits of wave evaporating off the front of one wave, and extra little bits magically appearing at the front of the other wave. There's no reason you'd predict that would happen, right? But it has to happen if the rest of it is right. The wavelength is the same, and the frequency at the source is the same, and the wave is traveling faster. So extra wave appears at the front. Is that possible? Well, you certainly wouldn't have expected it, right? Is there maybe something in Maxwells Equations that says it's impossible? > > 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. It's a moving source, right? > This is nothing like Sagnac I drew the picture straightened out because that was easiest for me. Was that the problem? > >> > 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. No, they correspond to where the source is when it's emitting more. The original starting source is elsewhere. > The photons/waves/rays are emitted a constant distance from D at all > times. Yes. Would it help if I label D and the original S? Why do I ask, of course it would. > > >> 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 !!! I didn't put the detector in, the detector was where they stop. Clearly I need to label it better. > > 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" Pick a time when a wave leaves the source in one direction, and another leaves the opposite direction. The detector is moving away fron one wave and toward the other. So later waves will start from farther behind on one side and closer on the other. > The source CANNOT get farther and closer to the detector when ther is > ONE source and it moves WITH the detector Please try to bear with me, I'm not that good at saying this stuff yet. It's new to me. > > 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. It would be easier to show it with a picture, but my current asnimation software is a little limited for that. I'll extend it or find something better, but this is a spare-time project.... > >> > 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 No, when I make it fixed wavelength and make them be in phase at the detector, they are out of phase at the source. I don't consider that "works perfectly". You can do it if the wavelength isn't fixed. > > 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 How does your constant-wavelength model work? 1. Fixed distance from D to S. 2. Rotates at 0.1c 3. Light in one direction travels at 0.9c, light in the other direction travels at 1.1c. 4. The distance traveled is 1.1 times the total fixed distance in one case, and 0.9 times the fixed distance in the other case. 5. Both directions have the same fixed wavelength, the same wavelength they have with no rotation, when both directions travel at c and the distances are the same. 6. Both light beams are in phase when they leave the source and in phase when they arrive at the detector. Did I leave something out? Did I add something extra? I can only make this work for certain particular distances that just happen to match up the lengths to be a whole number of wavelengths. > >> > 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. If he doesn't know what he's talking about, then he's challenging me to make sense of his cryptic words. I'm starting to do so. I like that almost as much as if he understands it too. > > 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 We'd have to find out how it doesn't fit reality. It fits the Sagnac experiment better than Pauli thought it did, unless I've made a mistake. > > 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. I hope you understood my explanation. I'll try to draw the picture better. > The source of the waves/photons/whatever MOVES WITH THE DETECTOR. Yes. > The distance between the source and the detector IS THE SAME ALL THE > TIME. Yes. > The distance between where the source WAS and the detector is NOW > changes, because the source moves. Yes. > 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. Ah. There is your hidden assumption. You assume that the wavelength times the frequency must equal the speed. Once you give up that assumption then they can get out of phase. The source is moving, so the frequency at the source does not have to equal the frequency of the wave movement. So anyway, I'll redraw the pictures and make them clearer, and maybe I'll find a mistake in the process.
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 22:22 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:65m5b5d6mh4a9h77243ehkkc987tel5ts7(a)4ax.com... > 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. More than you, it appears. > It is embarassing to converse with > you....worse than with Androcles.. I'm sure you do feel embarrassed. > FRINGE DISPLACEMENT is what a ring gyro monitors. IT is proportional to > angular velocity. Fine .. I've not said otherwise. > PHASE SHIFTING and fringe MOVEMENT occur during a speed change. In Sagnac, a fixed phase difference happens with NO change in rotational speed. There is a change in the phase difference when rotational speed changes. > We are discussing the phase DIFFERENCE between emitter and detector and > what > causes it. Ballistic theory gives no cause to see a phase shift, as it predicts none, because the light leaves the source at the same time with the same speed and the same frequency (relative to the source) and arrives at the same time with the same speed and the same frequency (relative to the detector). So they must be in phase. Is Sagnac, changes in rotational speed give you a change in the amount of phase difference. You don't need to be changing the angular velocities to see a phase difference, only to see a change in the phase difference. > 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. We get enough of that from you already.
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 22:27 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:_4Asm.141175$I07.118718(a)newsfe04.ams2... > I would be interested to see your explanation of the phase difference detected in Sagnac. Obviously Henry's is just nonsense. SR explains it, but you think it is wrong (we'll just ignore that for now though). Simple Aether theory explains it as well (but other experiments refute that) So what is different about your explanation from the standard ballistic explanation (where the ray travel at c+v and c-v in the non-rotating frame but at c in the rotating frame) ?? That's if you'll reply to me.
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 22:27 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message news:h0Csm.260340$156.187163(a)newsfe14.ams2... > > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message > news:ggo5b5dekce3iav7gvdfgbcv5iajbuvivo(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > > > "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate > person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson. > > You don't even know what the answer is so how can you tell if it's right? He's even forgotten the question !! :):)
From: Inertial on 17 Sep 2009 22:31
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:hon5b5p8qq8nvkfe02u80l3vv5tag0n92h(a)4ax.com... > 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 !! Oops.. there is mistake there .. I used the worth 'path' instead of 'distance'. Sorry. > That's the mistake you make when you use the rotating frame. But it is the same distance between the source to detector in every frame. Both the source and detector are moving. You seem to forget that. Senility perhaps? >>>> 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. That's what ballistic theory predicts > We don't know anything about this 'phase' thing as > it applies to photons. You are still trying to use a classical wave model. Then you need to provide a way of addressing how they can possibly become out of phase. |