The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 18 Sep 2009 17:53 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:45:42 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Sep 17, 9:27�pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > "Androcles" <Headmas...(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. >> >> Androcles has given two completely distinct and incompatible >> explanations over the years. >> >> 1) The standard analysis of Sagnac ignores second-order effects. >> They do exist, as noted by Paul Andersen in >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> By running a gif animation with the rotational velocity a >> large fraction of the speed of light, Androcles demonstrated >> that these second order "Coriolis" effects can, in principle, >> be quite large. > >But there's no particular reason to expect that second order effects >would come out the same as the first-order effects predicted by >classical theory and SR, the effects that have been observed. So that is >not very useful unless it turns out that the effects predicted match the >effects seen. > >> 2) My logical challenges to Androcles' second explanation earned >> me Plonk #5. (DvM has earned more Anrocles Plonks, but I got my >> plonks with far fewer posts.) Basically, Androcles agrees that >> no phase difference accumulates in the ring. The phase >> differences result when c+v and c-v light emerge from the beam >> splitter and travel to the detector. > >That ought to be testable. Change the distance to the detector and the >phase difference from that cause should change too, shouldn't it? It >would be great if that was true, we would have a reliable plentiful >source of bi-speed light to experiment with. > >Once again, it looks to me like the Ritz form is best so far, everybody >seems to agree that it fits the Sagnac results, it is designed so that >it will, so you don't have to come up with strange reasons for it to do >so. My theory is the same as Ritz's...only mine is up to date. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 18 Sep 2009 17:58 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:27:06 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. He doesn't have one. >Obviously Henry's is just nonsense. All of physics would appear like nonsense to you....just as it would to any chipanzee >SR explains it, but you think it is wrong (we'll just ignore that for now >though). It IS wrong. It violates its own P2. >Simple Aether theory explains it as well (but other experiments refute that) They haven't actually. MMX certainly didn't after Lorentz concocted his 'contractions'. There could be 'local aetherlike regions' >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. He wont. ...nor will I if you don't wake up.. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 18 Sep 2009 20:17 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Once again, it looks to me like the Ritz form is best so far, > >everybody seems to agree that it fits the Sagnac results, it is > >designed so that it will, so you don't have to come up with strange > >reasons for it to do so. > > My theory is the same as Ritz's...only mine is up to date. Oh! Why didn't you say so? ?! The central thing about Ritz's theory is that if the source is traveling in direction V at speed v, when a ray of light is emitted, then from then on until some nonconservative action happens to that ray, if it would otherwise be traveling at speed c in direction D it instead travels at cD + vV. While I thought the way you did it was more complicated, I thought you were saying that if the source is traveling in direction V at speed v when a ray of light is emitted in direction D, that the speed of that ray of light will be cD + vV from then on until something happens to it. It's the constant speed independent of direction that causes the trouble. But your double-star work does not particularly depend on what happens when light changes direction, right? I think it would carry over to Ritz's approach.
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:33 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090918084121.5d078640.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > Because the detector moves away from one light beam and moves toward >> > the other one. We all agree on that, right? >> >> The light is moving toward the detector in both cases. >> >> The closing rate between the leading edge of the light ray/photon/wave >> is the same for both rays. >> >> For a circular case (eg fibre optic) the dectector is 2piR away from >> the leading edge of both rays. Over the time, both rays get close to >> the detector at the same rate, and arrive at the same time (when the >> distance is then zero). >> >> The detector is moving away from the initial source position as >> recorded in the inertial frame in one direction, and close to it in >> the other. >> >> But relative to the leading edge of the light (in ballistic analysis) >> the rays and detector are moving twoard each other at the same rate > > Yes. I found my mistake. > >> > 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. >> >> Its not out of phase at the source (S), its out of phase at 's', which >> is not the source, but just a place the source passed by. > > I wasn't using 's', I double-counted the distance offset. The result was > similar. > > Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. > > I tried to find a way for Wilson's idea to be right, and I gave it my > best shot. Good for you. It is always worth considering other positions and seeing whether they are logically consistent and physically possible and experimentally observerd > This result fits my original interpretation. The change in speed for the > light in the different directions is just enough to make up for the > rotation. And without having to deal with the rotation the result is > completely symmetrical. It's hard to find anything to work with. Mmm.. of course, the answer is simple, that ballistic theory (with each ray having a constant speed around the ring) gives no phase shift because the rays arrive at the same time. If speed somehow varies over the duration by the right ammounts, then you can get different arrival times, and a phase shift. >> They leave the emitter in phase and arrive at the detector in phase >> and it takes the same time for them to do so. >> >> The only way for them NOT to arrive in phase is if something happened >> to the rays in transit > > It would have to happen differently to the waves that have the different > absolute speeds and different directions. I can sort of imagine ways > that could happen, but none that follow direction from an emission > theory. They'd be ad hoc things added onto the theory to let it fit > Sagnac. > > All in all, I think Wilson would be better off to go with the Ritz > emission theory. It treats reflections different, but Wilson's work with > double stars probably doesn't involve any reflections so he wouldn't > lose much there. And the Ritz theory works with Sagnac with some tiny > differences that likely have still not been tested. Ritz (as you have described it) makes no sense when you think about it, and is refuted experimentally.
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:33
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090918144542.2021b49e.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Sep 17, 9:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > "Androcles" <Headmas...(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. >> >> Androcles has given two completely distinct and incompatible >> explanations over the years. >> >> 1) The standard analysis of Sagnac ignores second-order effects. >> They do exist, as noted by Paul Andersen in >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> By running a gif animation with the rotational velocity a >> large fraction of the speed of light, Androcles demonstrated >> that these second order "Coriolis" effects can, in principle, >> be quite large. > > But there's no particular reason to expect that second order effects > would come out the same as the first-order effects predicted by > classical theory and SR, the effects that have been observed. So that is > not very useful unless it turns out that the effects predicted match the > effects seen. > >> 2) My logical challenges to Androcles' second explanation earned >> me Plonk #5. (DvM has earned more Anrocles Plonks, but I got my >> plonks with far fewer posts.) Basically, Androcles agrees that >> no phase difference accumulates in the ring. The phase >> differences result when c+v and c-v light emerge from the beam >> splitter and travel to the detector. > > That ought to be testable. Change the distance to the detector and the > phase difference from that cause should change too, shouldn't it? It > would be great if that was true, we would have a reliable plentiful > source of bi-speed light to experiment with. > > Once again, it looks to me like the Ritz form is best so far, everybody > seems to agree that it fits the Sagnac results, it is designed so that > it will, so you don't have to come up with strange reasons for it to do > so. But is refuted by other experiments. |