The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 19 Sep 2009 20:10 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 19, 12:19�am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/index.htm Not one is believable. Only a fool would take any of them seriously. >Jerry Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 19 Sep 2009 20:19 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:24:44 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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? Yes you are on the right track. We have to get away from the idea of waves, oscillators and phase differences based on time. My theory uses the principle that rays traveling for the same TIME don't necessarily end up in phase...as they would if they involved simple oscillators. I'm writing a new message that I hope will clarify the situation. It's difficult though because there are so many things moving at once. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jerry on 19 Sep 2009 20:49 On Sep 19, 5:24 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So, do I understand what you're saying? Does it look like this? > > http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif > That looks like a correct representation of Wilson's theory. Now look at some of the the terrifyingly horrible consequences: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm Scroll down 1/3 way to the first Java applet. Check out the Standard Wave Equation, then Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 1 Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2 Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 19 Sep 2009 22:07 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > So, do I understand what you're saying? Does it look like this? > > > > http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif > > > > That looks like a correct representation of Wilson's theory. > Now look at some of the the terrifyingly horrible consequences: > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm > > Scroll down 1/3 way to the first Java applet. > Check out the Standard Wave Equation, then > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 1 > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2 So far I have Wilson's agreement that the model I presented fits what he says. It looks to me like you've extrapolated considerably to get those two models for the whole wave. I was interested in your diagram of the Sagnac experiment, though. It looks like you have one light source and a beam-splitter that sends the light in two different directions. With a setup like that, wouldn't the usual emission theories give you no difference in speed at all between the two waves? Emission theory then would give you precisely the same result that classical theories do, the same as SR for nonrelativistic speeds.
From: Jerry on 19 Sep 2009 22:20
On Sep 19, 9:07 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So, do I understand what you're saying? Does it look like this? > > > >http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif > > > That looks like a correct representation of Wilson's theory. > > Now look at some of the the terrifyingly horrible consequences: > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm > > > Scroll down 1/3 way to the first Java applet. > > Check out the Standard Wave Equation, then > > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 1 > > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2 > > So far I have Wilson's agreement that the model I presented fits what he > says. It looks to me like you've extrapolated considerably to get those > two models for the whole wave. Hardly. Wilson LIKES version 2. > I was interested in your diagram of the Sagnac experiment, though. It > looks like you have one light source and a beam-splitter that sends the > light in two different directions. > > With a setup like that, wouldn't the usual emission theories give you no > difference in speed at all between the two waves? Emission theory then > would give you precisely the same result that classical theories do, the > same as SR for nonrelativistic speeds. Please focus on the meaning of the Miller (1924) results. What do they imply about the Ritz variant of emission theory? Jerry |