The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 17:41 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Why do you think that Ritzian light > > would keep its speed constant when traveling in single-mode fiber? > > > In any event, Pauli also mentioned use of the Sun as an external > > > light source breaks the closed-loop condition in a Michelson > > > interferometer, and the Ritzian version of emission theory > > > predicts a fringe shift in this circumstance. Miller tried this > > > in 1924 with negative results (at best only about 1 percent of > > > the predicted value, his measurements being completely dominated > > > by noise and systematic error). > > > > How would that work? The light from the sun should come at different > > speeds at dawn and at dusk because of the earth's rotation. So ... > > that light should then have different speeds in different > > directions, and those differences would mostly cancel out. How much > > does the diffraction pattern depend on the speed of the light > > instead of its wavelength? If different speeds of light that each > > show no interference give a different interference pattern, then you > > could see the difference. > > > > Is that the argument? > > The Ritzian rules of reflection amount to the statement that, > regardless of the number of reflections, light always travels at > c with respect to its original emitter. If we consider the Sun to > be a "stationary" source, the Ritzian version of emission theory > predicts results essentially idential to naive aether theory, with > the Sun defining the fixed frame. I think I see. Because if light travels for distance n at c+v and then travels for distance n at c-v the two don't quite cancel out. n/(c+v) + n/(c-v) != 2n/c So my natural thought is to do it the other way around. Rather than look at speed, look at 1/speed. Not at the distance per unit time but the time required to go a unit distance. Then add those instead of adding speeds. n/(c+v) + n/(c-v) != 2n/c (c+v)/n + (c-v)/n = 2c/n But I don't know how that will affect everything else.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 19 Sep 2009 18:02 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:39:37 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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: >> >>>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 this message doesn't warrant a reply Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 19 Sep 2009 18:04 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:19:08 -0400, 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, 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 That's what happens. >> > 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. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 18:24 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) 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, 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 > > That's what happens. So, do I understand what you're saying? Does it look like this? http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif If I have it right, what's the next step? I'm thinking it would be good to see how much of a diffraction change this would produce in case it's the wrong amount. Is there some other direction you'd want to go with it?
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 19 Sep 2009 18:27
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:18:20 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"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. If a golf ball splits in half during flight, what would you expect to be the speed of the two halves? Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |