The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 01:17 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > 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 OK, that's the same list I've seen before. The ones I'd be interested in are the ones about Tests of Lightspeed from Moving Sources Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources I will regard astronomical data as suggestive but inconclusive because our interpretation of astronomical events is so shaky. So the terrestrial experiments look interesting, but lack links to let me easily check the claims myself. I will at some point find a library that lets me copy the reports, and in the meantime I am curious about which of them people here have studied and approved.
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 01:19 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > 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. If phase were to vary by distance rather than time, and the speeds were right, you could get a phase shift from the paths being a different length. After all, it's the paths being a different length that persuades you they arrive at a different time with other theories. Try it out. One particle is emitted that travels at 1.1c, another travels at 0.9c, after 1 second they meet up. The first has traveled farther than the second. If "wavelength" is measured in distance traveled, the first has traveled an extra 2/9 light-seconds. They will not be in phase. But when I draw the diagram it will look like they have different wavelengths because the wave pictures will be shrunk on one side and stretched on the other. > > 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. As I have said before, people who believe in relativity have no ground to reject theories for not making sense. I'm interested in experimental refutations, though.
From: Inertial on 19 Sep 2009 02:18 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090919005601.29c5a23f.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "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. There have been tests with particles travelling a nearly-c emiting photons. .. those photons do not travel at v+c (otherwise we'd see some photons at nearly 2c and some at nearly 0.
From: Inertial on 19 Sep 2009 02:22 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090919011908.55f949c2.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > 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. > > If phase were to vary by distance rather than time, and the speeds were > right, Then it depends on who is measuring the distance and from where. The phase shift isn't observer dependant.
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 03:36
"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 > > > >> > 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. > > There have been tests with particles travelling a nearly-c emiting > photons. . those photons do not travel at v+c (otherwise we'd see some > photons at nearly 2c and some at nearly 0. Of course that's how it would go. So, how did they measure the speed of the photons? |