The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 19 Sep 2009 03:39 On Sep 19, 12:03 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. I reviewed pages 5-9 of Pauli where he reviews Ritz theory. http://books.google.com/books?id=7xrL7h10XkQC You are perhaps taking your cue from statements that Pauli makes on page 8, "It can be shown quite in general that for quantities of first order there is no difference between Ritz's and ordinary or relativistic optics, provided one deals with closed light paths...." The generality of a "general argument" depends crucially on the assumptions of the "general argument". Quite crucial to the argument are the assumptions regarding the Doppler effect for a moving mirror, where Pauli carefully distinguishes between the assumptions of Thomson and Stewart, versus Tolman, versus Ritz. The analyses of the mirrored Sagnac apparatus found on this newsgroup usually follow the Tolman assumptions, and find no predicted fringe displacement. It appears that the assumption of Ritzian reflections (which I find utterly bizarre) does result in a fringe displacement in a mirrored Sagnac apparatus. But here is where the "general argument" falls flat on its face. Before the invention of fibre optics, it was considered impossible to achieve a closed light path without the use of mirrors. Fibre optic gyroscopes represent a mirrorless implementation of the Sagnac principle, and all versions of emission theories predict zero fringe displacement given a mirrorless closed loop. Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 03:47 "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 > > > >> > 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. http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif Here's a picture, with the Sagnac ring unrolled. I set the distance at 10.5 wavelengths. I noticed that when one side goes 9 wavelengths and the other goes 11, at the end they are temporarily in phase. :| Two particles start in opposite directions with different speeds. The wavelength is observably the same. To have the wavelength be the same and the speed different, the frequency has to shift. And so of course when they meet they are out of phase. As near as I can tell, this is what Wilson says is happening.
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 03:50 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > I reviewed pages 5-9 of Pauli where he reviews Ritz theory. > http://books.google.com/books?id=7xrL7h10XkQC > > You are perhaps taking your cue from statements that Pauli makes > on page 8, "It can be shown quite in general that for quantities > of first order there is no difference between Ritz's and ordinary > or relativistic optics, provided one deals with closed light > paths...." > > The generality of a "general argument" depends crucially on the > assumptions of the "general argument". Quite crucial to the > argument are the assumptions regarding the Doppler effect for > a moving mirror, where Pauli carefully distinguishes between the > assumptions of Thomson and Stewart, versus Tolman, versus Ritz. > > The analyses of the mirrored Sagnac apparatus found on this > newsgroup usually follow the Tolman assumptions, and find no > predicted fringe displacement. > > It appears that the assumption of Ritzian reflections (which I > find utterly bizarre) does result in a fringe displacement in a > mirrored Sagnac apparatus. I agree that ritzian reflections look bizarre. But are they more bizarre than special relativity? > But here is where the "general argument" falls flat on its face. > Before the invention of fibre optics, it was considered > impossible to achieve a closed light path without the use of > mirrors. Fibre optic gyroscopes represent a mirrorless > implementation of the Sagnac principle, and all versions of > emission theories predict zero fringe displacement given a > mirrorless closed loop. Do fiber optics work without reflection?
From: Inertial on 19 Sep 2009 03:56 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090919035021.1f4b9131.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > > 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. >> >> I reviewed pages 5-9 of Pauli where he reviews Ritz theory. >> http://books.google.com/books?id=7xrL7h10XkQC >> >> You are perhaps taking your cue from statements that Pauli makes >> on page 8, "It can be shown quite in general that for quantities >> of first order there is no difference between Ritz's and ordinary >> or relativistic optics, provided one deals with closed light >> paths...." >> >> The generality of a "general argument" depends crucially on the >> assumptions of the "general argument". Quite crucial to the >> argument are the assumptions regarding the Doppler effect for >> a moving mirror, where Pauli carefully distinguishes between the >> assumptions of Thomson and Stewart, versus Tolman, versus Ritz. >> >> The analyses of the mirrored Sagnac apparatus found on this >> newsgroup usually follow the Tolman assumptions, and find no >> predicted fringe displacement. >> >> It appears that the assumption of Ritzian reflections (which I >> find utterly bizarre) does result in a fringe displacement in a >> mirrored Sagnac apparatus. > > I agree that ritzian reflections look bizarre. But are they more bizarre > than special relativity? Yes I can happily imagine a theory where a mirror reflects light at c relative to the mirror (so the light is effectively re-emitted at c). I can happily imagine a theory where a mirror reflects light at the same speed that the light hit the mirror. But one where a mirror changes the velocity of light so the c+v light gets reflected at c-v and vice versa, is just bizarre.
From: Inertial on 19 Sep 2009 03:58
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090919034724.5de53e44.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 >> > >> >> > 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. > > http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif > > Here's a picture, with the Sagnac ring unrolled. > > I set the distance at 10.5 wavelengths. I noticed that when one side > goes 9 wavelengths and the other goes 11, at the end they are > temporarily in phase. :| > > Two particles start in opposite directions with different speeds. > The wavelength is observably the same. As I showed you previously, wavelength is always measured from where the source is NOW, not where it was. That is how wavelength works .. the distance between corresponding point in successive cycles. > To have the wavelength be the same and the speed different, the > frequency has to shift. > And so of course when they meet they are out of phase No .. they aren't. > As near as I can tell, this is what Wilson says is happening. Yes it is, and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what wavelength is |