The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 18 Sep 2009 17:19 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:22:56 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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> >>>>>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. I just taught you that >> 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. I just taught you that > >> 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. I just taught you that >> 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. I just taught you everything you know about sagnac....which is very little Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 18 Sep 2009 17:23 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:31:16 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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: >>>> 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? IT IS NOT THE SAME DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EMISSION POINT AND THE DETECTION POINT. Even normal relativists get that bit right. You seem to have invented a new school....with ONE pupil. >>>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. I have. The number of 'wavelengths' in each path is different. The numbers change during an acceleration. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 18 Sep 2009 17:30 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:05 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >"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> >>> >>>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. The experiment is useless unless a range of phase differences are involved. This necessitates changing the rotation speeds of the apparatus. Your original claim was that the apparatus did not change speed at all...Now you're tring to wriggle out... I will not waste any more time on this so don't bother to reply.. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 18 Sep 2009 17:30 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:35:18 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. I'm not one of those relativists who claims to have ALL the answers. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: doug on 18 Sep 2009 18:33
Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:34:05 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >>"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> > > >>>>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. > > > The experiment is useless unless a range of phase differences are involved. > This necessitates changing the rotation speeds of the apparatus. > Your original claim was that the apparatus did not change speed at all...Now > you're tring to wriggle out... > I will not waste any more time on this so don't bother to reply.. > Ralphi is trying to bail out because he knows he is in way over his head. Next he will go back to lying. > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |