The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 19:26 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090908164007.0246f8dd.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 in message > >> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. >> > >> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an >> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, >> >> Which it does >> >> > but it doesn't vary with an >> > aether, it varies with the light. >> >> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the >> light? > > Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it keeps > that velocity. So the speed varies with the SOURCE >> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v >> > when it is emitted from its source. >> >> Relative to what? > > Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has relative > to that observer. So the speed is c+v .. why did you say "up to"? There is no evidence of any light travelling at less than c relative to the source (in vacuo) .. or are you talking about the reduced net speed when it travels through a medium like glass or water ? >> > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected >> > off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of >> > occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. >> >> Yes >> >> > Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. > > I meant that it doesn't change speed. Of course it changes direction. > Thank you for not picking on me about that. I knew what you meant :) >> No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive >> fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by >> SR and LET. > > OK. > >> Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It >> is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by >> emission theories. >> >> Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and >> naive fixed aether theories. >> >> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment >> > disproves emission theory, >> >> It does >> >> > which Androcles argues against strongly. >> >> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a >> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the >> observed Sagnac effect. > > I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't > understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible > with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time too. > I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of poetry, No .. it is a well known effect that you get when things accelerate around (say) a circular path. A straight line in a non-rotating frame appears curved in the rotating frame. The faster you spin the larger the effect. However, with the relatively VERY low rate of spin compared to the speed of light, this doesn't account for the Sagnac effect. Note that the SR explanation doesn't involve relativistic effect like time dilation and length contraction .. only that light travels at c in the inertial frame and as the two rays travel different length paths at the same speed, the rays arrive different times at the detector giving a phase difference. Whereas the rays travels at two different speeds in the ballistic analysis and arrives at the same time, and so there is no difference. > that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but that > isn't applied the way people usually do. The sort of thing that doesn't > help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look back later and > say "That's what he was talking about". > > I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia > article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. Then look up Sagnac :):) > They made it > seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the > double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler > effects from some stars. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory Thats another bit of evidence against ballistic theories Also that if one could have things moving at up to 2c relative to each other (if not faster) as ballistic theory claims .. then you would see that happening in particle accelerators .. however, relativistic effects limit the speed to always being under c, no matter how much energy we put into accelerating them, we can't get them oing any faster. if ballistic theories were correct, there would be no problem in just making a particles go faster and faster.
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 19:28 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:i1mda59la386teku47cjnrhcb46b0g5sp1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:40:07 -0400, 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: >>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >>> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. >>> > >>> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an >>> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, >>> >>> Which it does >>> >>> > but it doesn't vary with an >>> > aether, it varies with the light. >>> >>> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the >>> light? >> >>Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it keeps >>that velocity. >> >>> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v >>> > when it is emitted from its source. >>> >>> Relative to what? >> >>Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has relative >>to that observer. >> >>> > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected >>> > off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of >>> > occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> > Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. >> >>I meant that it doesn't change speed. Of course it changes direction. >>Thank you for not picking on me about that. >> >>> No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive >>> fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by >>> SR and LET. >> >>OK. >> >>> Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It >>> is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by >>> emission theories. >>> >>> Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and >>> naive fixed aether theories. >>> >>> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment >>> > disproves emission theory, >>> >>> It does >>> >>> > which Androcles argues against strongly. >>> >>> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a >>> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the >>> observed Sagnac effect. >> >>I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't >>understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible >>with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time too. >>I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of poetry, >>that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but that >>isn't applied the way people usually do. The sort of thing that doesn't >>help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look back later and >>say "That's what he was talking about". >> >>I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia >>article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. They made it >>seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the >>double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler >>effects from some stars. >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory > > I would bother conversing with 'inetial' if I were you. She's an > indoctrinated > fool and a total waste of time. In other words I undertand Henry's lies and inability to understand physcis > Sagnac is explained perfectly well by BaTh...as I have shown at both: And as I, and many others, have shown many many times, Henry's analysis is wrong, with errors deliberately left in so that the answer he gets is the one he wants. That shows him to be dishonest .. he cannot be trusted. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm > > Binary star data is the most convincing proof of BaTh yet. De Sitter's > experiments to the contrary were nonsense. > > This program produces just about all the variable star curves that are > observed > purely on c+v grounds. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe > > I didn't spend fifteen years writing the bloody thing for nothing. What a waste of a life > Andro has a > similar program that produces the same curves. Sekerin did it 70 years ago > without a computer and found the same curves. > > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 19:32 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote in message news:gSApm.120309$S82.5468(a)newsfe02.ams2... > > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:20090908164007.0246f8dd.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 in message >> >>> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >>> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. >>> > >>> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an >>> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, >>> >>> Which it does >>> >>> > but it doesn't vary with an >>> > aether, it varies with the light. >>> >>> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the >>> light? >> >> Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it keeps >> that velocity. > > Yeah, we call that inertia. The idiot calling itself "Inertial" has an > inert brain. > > >> >>> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v >>> > when it is emitted from its source. >>> >>> Relative to what? >> >> Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has relative >> to that observer. >> >>> > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected >>> > off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of >>> > occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> > Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. >> >> I meant that it doesn't change speed. Of course it changes direction. >> Thank you for not picking on me about that. >> >>> No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive >>> fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by >>> SR and LET. >> >> OK. >> >>> Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It >>> is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by >>> emission theories. >>> >>> Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and >>> naive fixed aether theories. >>> >>> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment >>> > disproves emission theory, >>> >>> It does >>> >>> > which Androcles argues against strongly. >>> >>> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a >>> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the >>> observed Sagnac effect. >> >> I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't >> understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible >> with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time too. >> I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of poetry, >> that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but that >> isn't applied the way people usually do. > > Only if you don't know what the coriolis effect is. Not being able to > watch > a movie on your toy computer doesn't help you much, but I'll post it > AGAIN. > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov Yes .. its a very good example of coriolis effect .. please watch it .. and if you ever get to sit on one of those turntable rides .. try it .. its fun :):). Note that when the relative speed of the rotating frame and the object is large, the effect is VERY small. >> The sort of thing that doesn't >> help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look back later and >> say "That's what he was talking about". >> >> I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia >> article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. They made it >> seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the >> double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler >> effects from some stars. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory > >
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 21:21 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >> >> >> I say interference is the addition of two amplitudes arriving > >> >> >> simultaneously. > >> >> >> > >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG> >> >> > >I say the wave envelope is the history of the beat frequency.> >> > > >> >> > I can see that for two waves that aren't the same frequency. > >It> >> > would fit your picture. So, with your picture, what would it > >mean> >> > for the waves to be in phase? > >> >> > >> >> All you have to do is the math. > >> >> amplitude = A.sin(omega.t+phi) + B.sin(omega.t +theta). > >> >> If in phase, phi = theta. > >> >> I used a spreadsheet to draw that. > >> > > >> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG > >> > > >> > You have two different frequencies. > >> > amplitude = A*sin(omega*t) + B*sin(phi*t) > >> > > >> > And these cannot be in phase unless omega = phi. > >> > >> Yes, ok, but by normal convention omega is radians per second, > >> phi is a fixed angle. > >> Better to write > >> amplitude = A*sin(omega_1*t) + B*sin(omega_2*t) to avoid confusion. > > > > OK. > > > >> > http://www.answers.com/topic/in-phase > >> > > >> > Do you have some other meaning for "in phase"? > >> > >> relative phase angle = 0. > >> amplitude = A*sin(omega_1*t + phi_1) + B*sin(omega_2*t +phi_2), > >> In phase if phi_1 = phi_2 AND omega_1*t = omega_2*t modulo 2pi > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG > >> > >> The signals are in phase where the envelope is maximised, out of > >phase> where it is minimised. > > > > OK. Various sources defined it otherwise, but I'll use your meaning > > now. > > > >> >> > It looks to me like a different concept. > >> >> Nope: > >> >> > >http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/powerac.html> >> > >> >http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090426010212AA5UQ7l > >> > > >> > These are both talking about cases where the frequency is the > >same.> > Your example has different frequencies. > >> > > >> >> > These other guys are talking > >> >> > about waves that they assume continue for many cycles, and > >they> >> > arrive at one place some fraction of a cycle off so > >they're out> >of> > phase the whole time at that place. > >> >> > >> >> What other guys? > >> > > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) > >> > > >> > These guys. > >> > >> "The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant > >> displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the > >> displacements of different waves at that point. " > >> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) > >> > >> Do you see where it says AT THAT POINT? > > > > Sure. Now look at the third sentence beyond that. > > > > "This form of interference can occur whenever a wave can propagate > > from a source to a destination by two or more paths of different > > length." > > > > They are assuming constant lightspeed, which gives them the light > > arriving from one of the paths after a delay, and that delay is what > > causes the waves to be out of phase. > > This is just plain silly. A doesn't meet B before B meets A. No, but look at it. Two slits. Light that starts at the same time at both of them, that travels at an angle. =... ... =.... ... .... ... ....... ...*.. ..**. .*** They go different angles so one of them travels farther to get to the same place. Did it arrive at the same time, going a greater distance? They say that no, it arrived later and did interference with a later part of the wave. > >> "The clear implication (from this theory) is that the light arrives > >> later. > >> (0.5 cycles or 1.5 cycles or 2.5 cycles etc later." --- Utter > >fuckin'> nonsense, Jonah. Only you could make that implication. > > > > It seems to me that this implication follows directly from the > > assumption of constant lightspeed. > > > >> >> > But you are talking about two waves you assume continue for > >many> >> > cycles, > >> >> > >> >> No I don't. Waves are history. > >> > > >> > Interesting. How do you get interference between light from two > >> > different sources? > >> > >> Like this: > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG > >> In radio we call that "modulation". > >> You may have heard of FM and AM. FM stands for frequency > >modulation,> AM stands for amplitude modulation. > > > > OK. > > > >> >> > that are not the same frequency so you get light of two new > >> >> > frequencies at that place. Not an interference pattern but two > >> >new> > frequencies. Do you see a way to turn that into a red > >shift?> >> > >> >> Shift is a ratio of speed with respect to the observer : speed > >> >w.r.t.> source. > >> >> (c+v)/c. > >> > > >> > So for you that isn't related. > >> > >> I can draw this with a spreadsheet: > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG > >> I'd say that was related and I understand the equations. Do you? > > > > You have to admit it's not the usual concept. People usually assume > > the lightspeed is unchanged and for that matter that across > > different paths the frequency is unchanged but only gets out of > > phase because of the delay. > > People usually assume B meets A when A meets B, not B meets A > after A has left the meeting place. Speed of arrival has nothing to do > with it. It doesn't because they ignore that part. They look at the steady-state part, when new wave crests and troughs continue to arrive at the same place and cancel each other. If one of them originally arrived 5 cycles early, who would notice? If you turn off the light and one of them lasts 5 cycles later, who would notice that? > > You have the lightspeed change causing a change in frequency. I > > don't yet see how that gets interference pattern from that which is > > static in space and time, but I expect I'll see it soon. You get a > > standing wave out of the interaction? > > Light is a stream of photons falling like raindrops. Radio is a > tsunami. Ripples on water travel omnidirectionally and diminish in > amplitude. Raindrops travel unidirectionally and remain the same size. > Both are water. Both carry kinetic energy. Photons originate from > molecules - a flame is a chemical reaction that emits photons. Radio > waves originate from antennae where the electric field is huge by > comparison. Yes? And? All of these cases can be described with emission theory, right? Otherwise it's limited in ways that other theories are not. > >> >> >> > If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get > >> >> >> > cancellation from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles > >> >later?> >> > >> >> >> Hahahahahahaha! > >> >> >> How do you get two traffic waves to collide at an > >intersection> >when> >> one traffic wave arrives 5.5 car lengths > >after the other?> >> > > >> >> > Exactly, it doesn't fit the model. > >> >> > >> >> Doesn't fit YOUR model. > >> >> You are claiming amplitude = A.sin(omega.t1) + B.sin(omega.t2) > >> >where> t1 <> t2, which doesn't make any sense. > >> >> I am saying amplitude = A.sin(omega.t) + B.sin(omega.t + theta) > >> > > >> > ?? B*sin(omega*t2) > >> > = B*sin(omega(t1+(t2-t1)) > >> > > >> > when t2-t1 = D where D is constant, > >> > > >> > = B*sin(omega*t1 + omega*D) > >> > > >> > and we have a constant just like theta. > >> > What's your problem with this? > >> > >> t1 = Jan 1, 2009, > >> t2 = Sept 8, 2009. > >> t2 - t1 = 334 days. > >> > >> That's my problem with it. > > > > It's only the part of the waves that overlap that will interfere. > > The parts that overlap are points. > "The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant > displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the > displacements of different waves at that point. " > Waves are not only history, they are not at the point where the > vector sum takes place. Sure, but if it's self-interference, the first choice is that at time zero the wave was split into two waves with the same frequency that were in phase, and then they went different paths for different distances and then met up again. And when they met up they were no longer in phase. One of them was at time 0 when the split happened, and the other was at some other time. Or you could make up something new. You could have the light all arrive at the same time no matter what path it takes, only it's somehow out of phase. Or you could have the light that was traveling in slightly different directions to begin with be out of phase at time zero. Etc. > > If you do a double-slit experiment and see interference, and then > > you turn off the light and don't it again until 334 days later, you > > won't see interference coming from the light in the old experiment. > > Light arriving at an interferometer on Jan 1 isn't going to interfere > at all with light arriving on Sept 8. It only interferes at the same > moment. Most people understand that and don't babble about 5.5 > wavelengths later. I'm starting to lose track of what your objection is. If light comes in packets that are one wavelength long, then to get self-interference you have to have it arrive at the same time no matter what path it took, and some paths have to change its phase without changing the time of arrival. Or maybe there's some other way to do it. If only Einstein was here, he could come up with some way to patch it up that people would think was brilliant. > > If a photon is a single up-down-backtocenter cycle, to get two of > > them to destructively interfere by the delay method you'd wind up > > with an up half-cycle followed by an interfered half cycle followed > > by a down half-cycle. It would make more sense in that context to > > imagine that one of them got flipped over so the down cycle came > > first, and then they arrive at the same time. > > > > That half-cycle -- nothing -- other-half-cycle thing looks pretty > > klunky, doesn't it? But if it was half-cycle -- ten thousand cycles > > of nothing -- other-half-cycle then the little bits left over would > > disappear in the noise. It doesn't seem as ridiculous when you have > > long waves. I really thought that was how they taught it. > > I'm having a lot of trouble getting it straight what Jonah is saying > when he uses hardly any math. I could probably write it if I had the > equations. I mostly haven't this time around, I'll try to remember to do better next time. > >> >> I don't have any trouble with sin(omega t) + sin (omega.t + pi) > >=> >0.> That works for me. What doesn't work is sin(omega t1) + > >sin(omega> >t2).> Why would you expect a photon to interfere with > >another that> >arrives> an hour later? > >> > > >> > If you have a sine wave that goes on for a long time, then it > >will> > interfere with another starting whenever the other arrives > >and> > ending whenever one of them ends. If both of them go to > >infinity in> > both directions, they cancel out even with a 1 hour > >phase shift.> > >> Prove it. > > > > ?? Isn't this in the introductory physics course? > > > > sin(theta) + sin(theta + i*pi) = 0 for any theta given integer i. > > theta sin(theta) i sin(theta+i*pi) > 0 0.00 0 0.00 > 0.39 0.38 1 -0.38 > 0.79 0.71 2 0.71 > 1.18 0.92 3 -0.92 > 1.57 1.00 4 1.00 > 1.96 0.92 5 -0.92 > 2.36 0.71 6 0.71 > 2.75 0.38 7 -0.38 > 3.14 0.00 8 0.00 > 3.53 -0.38 9 0.38 > 3.93 -0.71 10 -0.71 > 4.32 -0.92 11 0.92 > 4.71 -1.00 12 -1.00 > 5.11 -0.92 13 0.92 > 5.50 -0.71 14 -0.71 > 5.89 -0.38 15 0.38 > 6.28 0.00 16 0.00 > > My spreadsheet doesn't agree. You surely noticed that it sums to zero every other time plus at the i*pi terms. I should have said sin(theta + (2i+1)pi) where i is an integer. > >> >> > So, in a diffraction grating the light takes the same time to > >go> >the> > different distances. I can imagine it but I have trouble > >> >seeing how> > it works out just right. > >> >> > >> >> A boiled egg goes through this diffraction grating and comes out > >> >> sliced. > >> >> http://www.foodutensils.com.au/images/251T03121_Egg_Slicer.jpg > >> >> A liquid egg gets scrambled, but it is still a whole egg. > >> >> Photons are like water drops going through coffee filter papers. > >> >> They go in as drips and come out as drips. > >> >> Magnetic fields go through matter, as do gravitational fields. > >> > > >> > So, how do they do interference? > >> > > >> > http://gratings.newport.com/information/handbook/chapter9.asp#9.7 > >> > > >> > This is like an egg slicer that throws away every other slice. > >> > >> See figure 9:2. > > > > Figure 9.2 in the gratings link which shows that polarisation > > matters? I don't see how that applies. > > I still recommend you go to an optician. Not being able to see is > a terrible handicap. How does it apply? > >> Imagine a bar magnet on the axis marked "S". Imagine the magnetic > >> field around the bar magnet. Imagine a battery on the axis marked > >"P".> Imagine the electric field around the battery. Spin the bar > >magnet> around the P axis, like this: > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif > >> Now take away the battery and the magnet, but leave the fields, > >> hanging > >> in space. As the magnetic field collapses it creates the imaginary > >> battery. When it reaches zero the electric field is at a maximum. > >Now> the electric field collapses, having no changing magnetic field > >to> sustain it. The collapsing electric field creates the "bar > >magnet".> And so it continues. What do think happens when the > >travelling and> oscillating magnetic field meets the atoms of the > >diffraction grating? > > > > You're describing a wave. > > I'm describing a photon. Waves are history. You're describing a history. > Is it a wave that propagates "forward" but > > does not repeat in one place? > > It's a photon and it repeats in many places. Yes. > > The usual description of electric and magnetic components for an EM > > wave has them rising and falling together. > > The usual description is totally wrong. See Maxwell. See the first > law of thermodynamics. See Faraday. Learn about induction. > > That's just how the math works > > out. > > E = -dB/dt > > That means E remains constant while B changes. ?? del X E = -dB/dt del X B = KdE/dt So the change of each in space is proportional to the change of the other in time, and one of them has that minus sign. All this gives is a constraint, and any wave that matches the constraint is OK. So if A is the direction of travel and B and C are the axes for the electric and magnetic components, we could get Ah, I started to write down equations to say what I meant and it was hard. I'll do it later. You can get E and B to both keep high values but they rotate around A the direction of travel. They stay large with constant magnitudes, while the derivative wrt time also stays larget. Or you can have them stay on their own axes and be in phase, so that they both reach a maximum at the same time, and both reach a minimum at the same time, the change in space is highest when the actual value is zero, just like a sine wave. (I say 'minimum' meaning zero, not -1.) Or you could have any combination of the circular wave and the linear wave. And you don't even have to have something that's stable or periodic. People say they rise and fall together from looking at the graph of the most obvious case, where they go to zero at the same time. I remember looking at this stuff briefly some years ago, and I spoke up and told some people that the waves really should not be moving together but offset like sine and cosine. They told me I was wrong and when I looked at it they were right. If the electric and magnetic waves were on the same axis they'd have to be offset that way. But they are at 90 degrees and they are each doing a cross product with the direction of travel, and one of them has to be negative because it's, ah, the opposite direction of cross product. I'd have to look at it more carefully to understand it now, but I remember understanding it. Note that you are looking at E and B at one particular (x,y,z) place, and you have them continuing to change back and forth over time in that place. If you look at the history at that spot you will get a wave. Since the nearby spots are changing similarly, if you look at what's happening along the forward axis at one time you will also see a wavelike picture. I'm not sure in detail what it looks like when you get to the beginning. Presumably after a few cycles it will look very much like sine waves, but that first cycle probably looks special. > If B stops changing > then E drops to zero. That means you can have a permanent > magnet with NO electric field, but if you change magnet strength (or > just move it) then you'll get electric field. If we just move it we > call it a generator. Yes. > > But I've never heard of that getting tested experimentally. > > It's done every day by electronic and electrical engineers. Current > is in phase with the magnetic field. Capacitors are added to > compensate for inductance and improve power factor. > http://www.sdcindustries.com/pages/pfc.php You can measure electric and magnetic fields and see how they fit together. Can you do that with EM radiation? You can extrapolate, you can say it works such-and-such with the things you can measure so it's predictable it would work something like that for light. How do you measure the magnetic component of light? > > People > > talk like the magnetic field has so much less effect on stuff that > > they mostly ignore it except when thery're explaining how EM waves > > move. > > Those people are not engineers. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node48.html "Thus, the magnetic field associated with an electromagnetic wave is smaller in magnitude than the electric field by a factor $c$. Consider a free charge interacting with an electromagnetic wave. The force exerted on the charge is given by the Lorentz formula \begin{displaymath} {\bf f} = q ({\bf E} +{\bf v}\times{\bf B}). \end{displaymath} (458) "The ratio of the electric and magnetic forces is \begin{displaymath} \frac{f_{\rm magnetic}}{f_{\rm electric}} \sim \frac{v B_0}{E_0} \sim \frac{v}{c}. \end{displaymath} (459) "So, unless the charge is relativistic, the electric force greatly exceeds the magnetic force. Clearly, in most terrestrial situations electromagnetic waves are an essentially electric phenomenon (as far as their interaction with matter goes). For this reason, electromagnetic waves are usually characterized by their wave-vector (which specifies the direction of propagation and the wave-length) and the plane of polarization (i.e., the plane of oscillation) of the associated electric field." Did it sound like I said they ignore magnetic fields? I meant, they tend to ignore the magnetic component of EM radiation. If the people like this guy who make this claim are wrong, I'd be interested. > > So, like my diffraction grating link said, some places on the > > diffraction grating the wave meets the atoms head-on and it passes > > right through. Other places the grating is at a sharp angle and the > > wave meets it and reflects. So bands from the original wave pass > > through, and other bands do not. Like an egg slicer that keeps every > > other slice. You wind up with a particular half of the egg. > > > > This depends on the observation that light passes through glass and > > transparent plastic when its approach is close to vertical, and > > bounces off at shallow angles. Then they explain the diffraction > > pattern with wave constructive and destructive interference, and > > they claim the math actually fits the patterns they see. Light > > travels as if it's a wave and when light follows two paths of > > different lengths it can do self-cancellation. > > >> >> >> What, acceding to your psychobabble theory, is happening > >here:> >> >> > >> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif> > >>>> >> >> a) The three gears rotate independently at different > >speeds.> >> >> b) Each gear has a different number of teeth to the > >others, all> >> >rotate> at the > >> >> >> same speed > >> >> >> c) Other (explain). > >> >> >> Hint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs Ah, I'd seen this before. It shows a strobe effect so that at different speeds different dots look like they aren't moving. The obvious important conclusion is that you can't tell how fast something is moving by how fast it looks like it's moving. You might be seeing a strobe sort of effect and not the actual motion. And that's particularly true for rotations where you can expect the same things to come around again.
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 22:56
hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/radio11.htm > > > >These guys claim that electrons inside the antenna of a radio > >transmitter are traveling at close to lightspeed, and so the antenna > >needs to be long enough for them to get from one end to the other > >during the cycle. > > That depends on the frequency. As long as they experience > accelerations...which they do....they will radiate. > > >I am looking for things that move very fast and emit EMR that > >emission theory gives testable results for. Double stars give > >suggestive evidence but you kind of have to believe in it already or > >you'll just shrug it off. > > We don't only believe in it, we have proof. And by the way, real > scientists dont have beliefs. I have done real science, in molecular genetics. After all the undergraduate work we spent two years of intensive study to learn the basics of what the people in that field had already figured out. I spent extra time looking at how they knew, which did not do me a whole lot of good. If I had decided that everybody was wrong about something that everybody currently in the field believed because they had been taught it and they didn't have time to test it themselves, I perhaps could have done the labwork in my spare time to see for myself. It would not be a hot research topic. It would not help my career. Once I actually did a little bit of that. I had a lab protocol that was handed down, nobody seemed to know why it was done the way it was. You dumped a bacterial virus on the bacteria and waited seven minutes and then dumped calcium salts on them. Why? The calcium salts stopped viruses from attaching. I found that the calcium salts were toxic and when I did the procedure without any virus the salts killed about 10% of the bacteria. When I added them early fewer viruses attached. When I added them later more bacteria were attacked by multiple copies of the virus and died. At 7 minutes the number of bacteria that were infected and survived to release hundreds of viruses each, was maximised. It took me a big chunk of every day for three weeks to find that out. And it meant that I probably had 16% more live virus than I had thought I had. Also, I had to assume that the ones that died -- from attacking a cell that too many others attacked, from being slow to attach, from attaching to cells that died from calcium ions, etc -- were just like the ones that survived. There was no way for me to test that because they were dead. I could try physical tests. I could estimate the number of living and dead viruses by putting them through a coulter counter. I could look at them with an electron microscope and see what proportion were visibly damaged (after they had been prepared for microscopy). Nothing told me what I'd need to know. I tried to design my work so it wasn't very sensitive to that sort of thing. But for every lab protocol I could test there were twenty more I could not because there were not enough days in the funding cycle. > >We already know that there's a lot we don't know about astronomy. > > Astronomers have been led completely astray by Einstein's stupid > second postulate. The observe Willusions (illusions due to variable > light speed, named after me) and think they are seeing reality. It's always that way. We know there's a lot we don't know, but it's the things we think we know that aren't so that cause the worst problems. > >What can we get to move very fast under controlled conditions? > >Subatomic particles. And they can radiate. If emission theory can > >tell us what kind of radiation to expect from them, it might give us > >something that can actually be tested. If your theory says that light > >coming off of particles in a linear accelerator (or a synchrotron) > >will be dopplered some particular way, or will come from a particular > >angle, or will travel at a testable velocity, then we have something > >to work with. If you can make testable predictions about radio towers > >that's even better-- make friends with an engineer who works with a > >radio tower, and maybe with a small plane pilot, and you might be > >able to collect the data using cheap homemade equipment. > > I think it's time you did some reading. I'm not going to teach you the > whole of physics. It has been claimed by relativists that pions moving > near c decay into gamma particle that also move at c and not 2c. This > and similar experiments are a joke. I'm doing some reading, but of course there are only so many spare hours in the week. I'm trying to focus on the most central issues first, on the assumption that emission theory is worth looking at in the first place. I'll be happy if you offer me some links and I can't promise how fast I'll get to them. They'll go to the top of the stack if they look like the most central stuff. > >> >There's the complication that these signals are passing through > >air.> >But if the theory predicts anything interesting it might be > >possible> >to get data about communication among satellites where > >that> >complication is much reduced. The relative velocity of the > >satellites> >may be small, but the velocity of the actual source > >inside the> >antenna would be large, if it's relevant. > >> > >> EM initially moves at c wrt its source. Moving air woujldn't affect > >it> much at all. > > > >Cerenkov radiation happens because lightspeed is slow in water. > > Cerenkov radiation occurs when a particle traveling at near c enters a > medium that has a higher refractive index. There is a rapid > decelration resulting in massive radiation. Tis involves a medium and > doesn't tell us anything about BaTh. Light is only 100% ballistic when > in the vacuum of space. I considered it a confounding factor. Better to do things in vacuum where the effects of air don't get in the way. If you think you have light that moves at c+v (where v is the velocity of the emitter relative to your observer) it might not move at c+v in air as long as you'd want it to. > >> >What about synchrotron radiation? > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation > >> > >> When charges accelerate they radiate. THe maths for that has been > >> known for a long time. > >> But I have often wondered how they can know how and when to radiate > >if> what they radiate is quantized. > > > >Why would it be quantised? It isn't electrons jumping from one level > >to another in an intact atom. It's only atoms emitting and absorbing > >light that are quantised, right? Charges that circle continuously in > >a synchrotron surely emit light continuously. > > What is emitted is quantized. ?? This is by observation or by fiat? > >> >Apparently SR gives some interesting predictions which are claimed > >to> >fit the actual data. If emission theory were to duplicate those > >> >predictions that would be a plus. > >> > >> SR is nonsense from start to finish...Forget it. Einstein was a > >hoaxer> and an expert salesman. > > > >If emission theory is correct, then SR has had whatever successes it > >has by predicting the same results that emission theory gets -- using > >more complicated methods. > > Where SR is correct, it uses similar reasoning to BaTh. In the MMX for > instance, SR simply says light moves at c in an inertial frame > threfore it is c wrt all the mirrors. That is straight BaTh. Yes, I saw that. > Also, TWLS measurements always > produce the same value for the universal constant c. that is exactly > what BaTh predicts. Yes. > Nobody has so far measured OWLS from a moving source so Einstein's > silly aether theory, with its trendy jargon and maths has prevailed > for 100 years by impressing little boys and girls like eric geese and > inertial. After a certain point, it stops being an acceptable research topic. 100 years is well past that point. > >SR says that after you take time dilation and length compression etc > >into account, a light source that looks like it emits circular light > >waves from its own frame will also look like it's emitting circular > >light waves from all other frames. > > That's the postulate. ...no proof Yes. It all works if you have a minkowski space with a finite speed limit. > >So does emission theory, without the time dilation and length > >compression! > > No it doesn't. ?? Take something that emits light in all directions at c relative to itself. Light that leaves in any direction A at time t0 will be at A*(t1-t0)*c at time t1. Light that leaves in direction A at time t2 will be at A*(t1-t2)*c at time t1, if t2<t1. Look at it as if it's moving at v in direction V. Then light that leaves in any direction A at t0 will be at a*(t1-t0)*c + v(t1-t0)V at time t1. Light that leaves in direction A at time t2 will be at A*(t1-t2)*c + v(t1-t0)V at time t1, because the source travels at v in direction V as does all light emitted from that source. So the result is that all our circular waves along with our inertial source -- all of them -- get moved the same amount, and you if you had concentric circular waves before you still do after you do the transform. Is that what you say doesn't happen, or was it something else? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation > >"When high-energy relativistic electrons are forced to travel in a > >curved path by a magnetic field, synchrotron radiation is produced, > >similar to a radio antenna, but with the difference that the > >relativistic speed changes the observed frequency due to the Doppler > >effect by a factor ?. Relativistic Lorentz contraction bumps the > >frequency by another factor of ?, thus multiplying the GeV frequency > >of the resonant cavity that accelerates the electrons into the X-ray > >range. Another dramatic effect of relativity is that the radiation > >pattern is distorted from the isotropic dipole pattern expected from > >non-relativistic theory into an extremely forward-pointing cone of > >radiation." > > There are other reasons for these phenomena. Different laws apply to > accelerating charges. SR is supposed to apply to neutral objects. > > >I haven't followed up the details, but somebody on wikipedia claims > >that SR accounts for a frequency change of a couple of gammas, and > >explains the changed angle of emission. If traditional methods got > >the frequency wrong and the radiation pattern wrong, and if SR got > >those right, and if emission theory is correct, then SR got it right > >by predicting some things to work the way emission theory says they > >would. So emission theory would predict the same things, without the > >lorentz contraction etc. > > It does...but usually nobody has looked for the BaTh explanation > because no funding would be made available by the indoctrinated > physics establishment. Yes. > >So it seems to me the obvious plan is to gradually go through all of > >optics etc and see what emission theory predicts, looking for things > >involving a moving source that classical physics gets wrong and > >emission theory gets right, and look hard for things that emission > >theory gets wrong. In the ideal case we would find that emission > >theory never gets a wrong conclusion and that it gets right > >everything that SR does and more. > > What do you think we have been doing here for the past fifteen years. Thank you! > I and others have cleared up Sagnac, Binary stars, relativistic mass > increase, Fizeau, the muon hoax, and the rest. Many of these now > refute SR but the members of the einsteinian church will never adnit > they are wrong. I've seen Androcles's website. Would you recommend any others? Are there places this information has been collected? |