The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:34 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:8a08b5lhj0uqn759sfn9hvoukpo1ksn220(a)4ax.com... > 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. No .. its not
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:36 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:m6u7b5hlgo2arm45psgb2j5if3i8ov7db3(a)4ax.com... > 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 LIAR >>> 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 LIAR >>> 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 LIAR >>> 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 LIAR On all accounts. You are a shameless piece of lying scum.
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:39 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:8du7b55fd4acmuu5bgdrl512s2khj4pmma(a)4ax.com... > 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. BAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. You really are a fool. There is the same distance between the source and detector at all times. >>> 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. There is no change of angular velocity in a given trial of the Sagnac experiment
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:41 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:kou7b5l8auo70q9kfje0b3gtbpabq68ptb(a)4ax.com... > 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.. Thank good we don't need to read any more of your lies.
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:41
"doug" <xx(a)xx.com> wrote in message news:GMydnd0GZuEUYS7XnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)posted.docknet... > > > 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. Too late.. he already is. He's a lying piece of scum. |