The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 18 Sep 2009 20:42 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:2vu7b5pkli7vth2scchblj8osqp3ts0hij(a)4ax.com... > 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. You have NO answers. You don't even know the questions.
From: Jerry on 19 Sep 2009 00:07 On Sep 18, 1:45 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. They do not. > > 2) My logical challenges to Androcles' second explanation earned > > me Plonk #5. Actually, Plonk #6. > > (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. It isn't true. > Once again, it looks to me like the Ritz form is best so far, everybody > seems to agree that it fits the Sagnac results, Nope. Ritz fails to fit 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. Who claims that Ritz fits Sagnac? Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 00:56 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> 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. > > But is refuted by other experiments. Which other experiments do you believe refute it? Traditionally people accepted DeSitter's binary star claims as a refutation. I've seen links to some possible experimental refutations but I don't know which of them actually work.
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 01:03 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(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, > > Nope. Ritz fails to fit 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. > > Who claims that Ritz fits Sagnac? Pauli claimed that Ritz fit the Sagnac results within first-order. There were second-order differences which at that time were too small to be tested. See _Theory of Relativity_ by Wolfgang Pauli, originally published in german in 1921. The 1958 GoogleBooks version is partly available online for free.
From: doug on 19 Sep 2009 02:04
Jonah Thomas wrote: > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> 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. >> >>But is refuted by other experiments. > > > Which other experiments do you believe refute it? Traditionally people > accepted DeSitter's binary star claims as a refutation. I've seen links > to some possible experimental refutations but I don't know which of them > actually work. Look at the following to see a good list of experiments: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html |